Week 1 Course intro, developing a RQ, translating RQ into conceptual model
Summary chapter 1,4,5 : BOOK Academic Skills for Interdisciplinary Studies (GPK)
Chapter 1 Preparatory reading and researching
An initial literature search
The objective of a literature review is to find academic sources that help you to map out the concepts,
theories and empirical studies that are relevant to your topic. Objective is two-fold: (1) Find as much as
possible about the research field. (2)(on the other hand) tap into unexplored field
•
•
Theories: are supposed relationships between concepts
Concept: an abstraction, supposed pattern, or idea that can be defined or combined in different
ways.
• Correlation: Link between two concepts; for example, if concept A is measured somewhere, and
concept B is also measured.
• Causal relationship: concept A explains the presence of concept B.
è Thus concepts are the building blocks of theories.
Definitions (and theories about the supposed relationship between them) can differ significantly across
the disciplines and between scholars.
•
Academic articles (Scholarly literature) share a number of characteristics:
o Published in Scholarly journals
§ Measure a journal’s value with its impact factor (number of citations of its
articles in other scholarly articles.)
o Journals are Peer-reviewed (their content is assessed by at least two independent and
usually anonymous scholars)
o Articles are written by authors who have no direct commercial or political interest in the
topic on which they are writing, and the authors’ background is given.
o Articles are preceded by an abstract.
o Articles contain a large number of references to other scholarly publications on the same
topic.
Grey literature
Grey literature à publications written by researchers or research organizations, but not peer-reviewed.
Grey literature frequently contain specialized and specific knowledge that is not available in academic
publications. Difficult to gauge whether these articles are of sufficient quality to be used as reliable
sources.
•
Include
o Advisory reports
o Non-academic research reports
o Non-academic (or yet-to-become academic) publications from the academic world
o Popular scientific books
Digital search engines and databases
Various databases and search engines can be used to search scholarly journals.
Search methods
Tips for searching for literature:
1. Use a combination of search terms that accurately describes your topic.
2. You should used mainly Engilsh search terms.
3. Try multiple search terms to unearth the sources you need.
a. Ensure that you know a number of synonyms for your main topic
b. Use the search engine’s thesaurus function (if available) to map out related concepts.
Ordering you search results
It is often possible to order your search results in different ways. Examples:
•
•
•
Date of publication
Relevances: the articles at the top of the list are those closest to your search terms.
References: (most useful): the articles at the top of the list are those that are used most often by
other authors and best reflect the key debates and research in the field you’ve identified.
Continuous search
Use your search results to find more relevant sources.
1. Use the overview of keywords (of the article you already found) to help you to refine or improve
your search combination.
2. Look at which recent articles refer to a particular article that you’ve already found.
3. Use the option ‘related articles’, these literatures suggestions can also help you when searching
for other relevant sources.
Chapter 4: From your topic to your question
Defining your topic is a dynamic process. Concepts and theories can provide a good indication, however,
as you can narrow or widen the scope by limiting or expanding the network of related concepts. It is the
task of the researcher to take a clear position amongst the jumble of conflicting or complementary
theories. This is often done in the theoretical framework. It is insufficient to have an understanding of
the existing theory. This is known as the problem statement: a statement of what, based on the theory,
has yet to be clarified about the topic, and why it is essential to investigate this. Based on this statement,
you will finally be able to formulate your research question: the question that will shape the rest of your
research.
Theoretical framework
Theoretical framework can differ from study to study. There are disciplines that do not approach theory
as it is conceived here, namely as theory in empirical scholarship: a relationship between concepts. Aside
from precisely which theoretical frameworks is used, studies can also differ in terms of the role the
theoretical framework plays within them:
•
•
•
Purely methodological papers: the theoretical framework mainly indicates the state of existing
research in a field.
Conceptual-theoretical studies: frequently omit the ‘debate’ between different theories, because
this is already covered in the research.
Empirical cycle (in this books): the theoretical framework plays a prominent role in this, because
it not only outlines the state of the research field, but it also demarcates the niche where you,
the researcher, are intending to contribute to knowledge in one or more research fields.
From theories to concepts and dimensions
In order to find your niche, you must look at what other researchers have done, first broadly (broad
theoretical basis) and you try to keep narrowing it down until you identify the aspects of a theory that is
relevant to describing and/or explaining your case. Based on your exploratory literature review, you built
up a picture of the key authors and their most important articles. For a research study in which you want
to generate your own results, the topic needs to be narrowed down further – to identify a gap in the
existing knowledge. A way to find a ‘niche’ in your chosen research field is to keep investigating which
dimensions (scope) of the concepts are identified by the different authors. Identifying the different
dimensions helps you to define which aspects of the concept you want to measure and which you do not.
The theoretical framework and interdisciplinary research
When you do interdisciplinary research, your theoretical framework is where you link several theoretical
perspectives together; it is where you describe how different disciplines approach similar concepts
differently.
The problem statement
The theoretical framework ends with the establishment of the knowledge gap; in the problem statement
you argue why this gap should be filled with your study. Two factors are important in this: scholarly and
social relevance.
•
•
Scientific relevance: the value that your research will add to existing scientific practice.
Socially relevant: your research findings should be of interest to society in a broad sense.
Chapter 5: Formulating a good question
Drafting a good research question is one of the most difficult, but also one of the most important ,
aspects of academic research. It is an iterative process in which you go back and forth between the
literature and your research question.
Checklist for research:
-
Relevance
Precision
Feasibility
Position within field
There roughly two sorts of questions:
1. Comparative questions – These are questions whereby you compare two or more concepts, or
look at the relationship between them.
2. Explanatory questions – you try to unravel the explanations that underlie a phenomenon,
something that is particularly common in literature reviews.
When formulating your question, anticipate the type of answer that will follow. In addition, it is very
important to delimit your question. In other words, the terms and concepts that make the question
should be defined as clearly and specifically as possible, so that it is clear exactly what you want to
research. Another option is to specify these dimensions in sub-questions. In this case, you take a main
question and divide it into sub-questions. You then address the answers to the sub-questions in the
conclusion. The answers to the sub-questions answer the main questions.
Week 2 Embedding RQ into literature
Lecture 2 – PowerPoint
Research paper process
All steps of a scientific research process
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction/research questions
Literature review
Research method
Data analysis
Conclusion, Discussion
Scientific Research
Stars with a Hourglass model à the research starts really broad and then you narrow it down to a
question or problem that fits in your scope. You choose a subject and keep it (broad). Then you scope it
down to find a relationship between the things you want to study (Small). Then you suggest that it can be
useful for a broader scope (broad).
The research question is key as it determines:
•
•
•
•
•
Overall focus
Literature review
Methodology
Analysis
Reporting
What is a research question?
•
•
A research question is a question that a study or research project aims to answer.
The research question arises from the identified problem
o Research questions identify the information that is needed to solve the central problem
o Sub-question for a research question are interrelated
o Together, they will provide an answer for you central problem
o “how is concept X defined?” is NOT a research question!
How to write a research question: from topic to specific question
1. Start with an interesting topic à a gap in literature
2. Do preliminary research à look on google scholar if there are important topics/subjects for this
topic
3. Focus on specific question à Narrow the question down so it is feasible à write out scope and
conceptual model (moderators/mediators) à maybe even know similar topics that have not the
same definition. E.g. bullwhip effect but not …..
4. Evaluate à Identify a research problem ‘what happens if there is a negative relation?’
e.g. sales lead to less expected profit due to bullwhip effect.
Not every research question is a good research question!!
Characteristics of a strong research question
1.
2.
3.
4.
Focused and researchable (measurable)
Specific and feasible (redelijk)
Complex and arguable
Original and relevant
Steps before you finalise your RQ?
• Know about the scope of your research
o Which concepts and variable will be
included?
o What will NOT be included?
o Fit with the research goal
o Consider the type of research (collecting
original data, analyzing existing data, etc.)
•
•
•
In most studies, the research question is written so
that it outlines various aspects of the study,
including
o The population
o Variables to be studied (the core concept)
o The problem the study addresses
These questions are dynamic; this means researchers can change or refine the research question
as they review related literature
Does your Thesis have single or multiple Research Questions (sub-questions)
In order to move forward with your research question and test a cause-and-effect relationship, you must
first identify at least two key variables: your independent and dependent variables.
è Restate your question as a Thesis Statement
There are different types of Research Questions
•
•
•
Descriptive Questions: Questions that seek to explain something. Typically start with phrases like
“What are/is”, How..?” and “What amount…?”
Comparison Questions: Questions that focus on the relationship between variables: they focus
on the differences and similarities between these variables
Causal Questions: Questions that examine whether one variables has impacted another.
Finally, the problem statement should frame how you intend to address the problem. Your goal should
not be to find a conclusive solution, but to seek out the reasons behind the problem and propose more
effective approaches to tackling or understanding it.
1
Independent variables are what we expect will influence dependent variables (X-as)
2
A dependent variable is what happens as a result of the independent variable (Y-as). Generally, the dependent
variable is the disease or outcome of interest for the study, and the independent variables are the factors that may
influence the outcome.
Where do I embed my RQ?
Follow the following format:
1. Paragraph 1: The problem – why is the study important and relevant
2. Paragraph 2: What do we know? Acknowledge what others have said about the topic; What
don’t we know? What is the gap in the literature?
3. Paragraph 3: This is the research question; and this is how I am going to address it
4. Paragraph 4: summary of the findings
5. Paragraph 5: contributions
6. Paragraph 6: The structure of the paper
Everything in your thesis should be linked to the
Research Questions.
To summarize (lecture 2):
1. Your research question should be embedded in the introduction section of your thesis
2. You may have single or multiple research questions, All the research questions should be linked
to each other.
3. It should again be mentioned in the conclusion section of your thesis highlighting whether the
evidence provided by your data agrees with your argument/research question?
4. The research question(s) should clearly state your independent1 and dependent2 variables. It
should also state the proposed relationship (needless to say this should be based on prior
research) between these variables.
5. Thesis writing is a dynamic process; the research question is the key to all the other components
of your thesis. For example, the proposed hypothesis is a formal statement (based on your
research question) that the researcher sets out to prove or dispose.
Summary: BOOK Jaccard, J. & Jacoby, J. 2020. Theory construction and model
building skills (JJ)
Chapter 4: Creativity and the Generation of Ideas
This chapter will provide concrete guidance for theory construction. Theory construction involves
specifying relationships between concepts in ways that create new insights into the phenomena we are
interested in understanding. In this chapter, we briefly review research on creativity to give you
perspectives on the mental and social processes involved in the creative process.
One small step for science
The gradual building of knowledge is an essential aspect of the scientific endeavor. Small bits of
knowledge cumulate into larger groupings of knowledge.
Creativity
Creativity can be defined as the ability to produce work that is both novel (original and unexpected) and
appropriate (useful or meets task constraints). Creative contributions result from the interaction of three
systems:
1. The innovating person
2. The substantive domain in which the person works
3. The field of gatekeepers and practitioners who solicit, discourage, respond to, judge, and reward
contributions.
Creative ideas provide novel perspectives on phenomena in ways that provide insights not preciously
recognized. Ideas differ in their degree of creativity, with some ideas being extremely creative and others
only marginally so. But just because an idea is “crowd defying” does not make it useful. For creativity to
occur in science, it typically is preceded by a personal decision to try to think creatively.
Choosing what to theorize about
The first step in building a theory is choosing a phenomenon to explain or question/problem to address.
Be careful about selecting areas that are too broad and abstract. It is one thing to try to solve an existing
problem or answer an existing question, but creative scientists also identify new problems to solve or
new questions to answer.
Literature reviews
Perhaps the most often recommended strategy for gaining perspectives on a phenomenon or
question/problem is to consult the scientific literature already published on the topic.
Heuristics for generating ideas
We now turn to specific strategies you can use to think about issues in creative and novel ways. The book
present 27 heuristics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Analyze your own experiences
Use case studies
Collect practitioner or expert rules of thumb
Use role playing
Conduct a thought experiment
Engage in participation observation
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Analyze paradoxical incidents
Engage in imaging
Use analogies and metaphors
Reframe the problem in terms of the opposite
Apply deviant case analysis
Change the scale (imagining extreme changes as a method of stimulating thinking
Focus on processes or focus on variables
Consider abstractions or specific instances
Make the opposite assumption
Apply the continual why and what
Consult your grandmother – and prove her wrong
Push an established finding to the extremes
Read biographies and literature
Identify remote and shared/differentiating associates
Shift the unit of analysis
Shift the level of analysis
Use both explanations rather than one or the other
Capitalize on methodological and technological innovations
Focus on your emotions
Find what pushes your intellectual hot bottom
Engage in prescient theorizing
Scientists on scientific theorizing
Chapter 5: Focusing Concepts
People see the world not as it is, but as they are. – Albert Lee
When formulating a theory, researchers usually begin with some phenomenon that they want to
understand. In chapter 5, we focus on strategies for specifying and refining conceptual definitions for
those concepts that one decides to include in the system. We begin with the describing the process of
instantiation …
The process of instantiation
The process of instantiation is a method for making abstract concepts more concrete. In the process of
theorizing, scientists usually try to strike a balance between being too specific and being too abstract, to
the point where the concepts become “fuzzy” and unmanageable.
•
Instantiation
o a deliberate process that involves specifying concrete instances of abstract concepts in
order to help clarify their meaning.
§ Goal: refine fuzzy concepts
o Is a bridge between the conceptual and the empirical realms where the validity of a
theoretical expression is subjected to empirical testing.
§ Goal: make the theory testable
•
Hypothesis
o Refer to the specific empirically based instances that are used to test a more general
theoretical expression.
o Consist of concepts and relationships
The nature of conceptual definitions
The outcomes of instantiation are termed conceptual definitions, which represent clear and concise
definitions of one’s concept. Not only do abstract constructs have to be defined as precisely as possible,
but even seemingly obvious concepts frequently require explanation.
Shared meaning, surplus meaning, and nomological networks
Shared meaning à The extent to which conceptual definitions overlap in different theories. (The points
of agreement in a conceptual definition my be assumed to represent the essential core of the concept.)
Surplus meaning à those portions of conceptual definitions that do not overlap across theories. (Can be
contrasted with the remainder, the disagreements of conceptual definitions in research).
Nomological networks à the meaning and utility of a concept emerge in the context of the broader
theoretical network in which the concept is embedded.
Although it is desirable for constructs to have shared versus surplus meaning, the worth and meaning of
a construct ultimately are judged relative to the broader nomological network in which the construct is
embedded.
Practical strategies for specifying conceptual definitions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examine the scientific literature to see how other scientists have done so
Consulting a dictionary
List the key properties of a concept
o Properties à the identifiable characteristics of concepts and form the cornerstone for
later measurement of the concept and empirical testing.
Ask the question “What do you mean by that?”, focus on the keywords within the answer and
ask again the same question.
Play the role of a journalist who must explain the nature of the varable and its meaning to the
public.
Place yourself in the position of having to define and explain the concept to someone who is just
learning the English language.
Using a denotive definition strategy
Writing out how the concept would be measured in an empirical investigation.
Use principles of grounded theory construction.
Multidimensional constructs
When defining concepts in a theory, it sometimes is useful to thing of subdimensions or “subtypes” of
the construct. A construct is multidimensional when it refers to several distinct but related dimensions
treated as a single concept. Example, risk taking have delineated four types of risk taking propensities of
individuals: (1) physical risk taking, (2) social risk taking, (3) monetary risk taking and (4) moral risk taking.
You can often make a theoretical network richer and concepts more precise and clearer by specifying
subcomponents or dimensions of a higher-order construct.
Creating constructs
Social scientist use a variety of strategies for “creating” variables. There are different strategies to do
that:
1. Translate an individual-level variable into a contextual-level variable.
a. Example: ethnicity. Researchers can characterize ethnicity at higher contextual levels,
such as the ethnic composition of a school that individuals attend.
2. Reframe environment or contextual variables to represent an individual’s perceptions.
a. Instead of studying the characteristics of the organizational climate of a business, you
might study how an individual perceives the organization climate.
Operationism
Conceptual definition specify what needs to be assessed in empirical science, but the matter of how they
will be assessed is a distinct issue. This latter function is served by what scientists refer to as operational
definitions, which are central to the design of empirical tests of a theory.
Many behavioral scientist felt we should abandon conceptual definitions and restrict science to
observable operations. This approach was called operationism.
Article: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution (Whetten)
There are several excellent treatises on the subject, but they typically involve terms and concepts that are
difficult to incorporate into everyday communications with authors and reviewers. My experience has
been that available frameworks are as likely to obfuscate, as they are to clarify, meaning.
What are the building blocks of theory development?
What and How describe; only Why explains. What and How provide a framework for interpreting
patterns, or discrepancies, in our empirical observations.
According to theory development authorities (Dubin, 1978), a complete theory consists 3 elements:
-
What
How
Why
(Describe)
(Describe)
(Explain)
(Dependent and independent variables)
(Arrows show effect)
(Literature review backing)
What
Which factors are part of the explanation?
Two criteria:
1. Comprehensiveness (are all relevant factors included?)
2. Parsimony (should some factors be deleted because they add little value?)
Rule of thumb: better to add in too many than too little factors. Refining will erase useless factors lateron
How
How are these factors related? (with arrows from independent to dependent. Can be: +, -, unknown)
‘What’ and ‘How’ crafts the conceptual framework basically. Just a visual tool, not mandatory
Why (most important aspect of building blocks)
Justify selection of the (‘what’) criteria. Order triumphs over data when creating a theory development.
As a researcher, you have to convince stakeholders that there is a ‘logical’ effect between two variables. If
all the relationships have been proven, the theory/model is created for classroom. If not, the ‘laboratory’
can still play with the variables and knowledge. The goal is to extend existing knowledge, not rewrite it (in
majority of cases). This is the reason for the importance of the ‘why’.
This is an important distinction because data, whether qualitative or quantitative, characterize; theory
supplies the explanation for the characteristics. Therefore, we must make sure that what is passing as
good theory includes a plausible, cogent explanation for why we should expect certain relationships in
our data. Together these three elements provide the essential ingredients of a simple theory: description
and explanation.
There are three conditions: (Moderators for example: this is only applicable in industry X for example)
-
Who
Where
When
These conditions place limitations on the propositions generated from a theoretical model. These
temporal and contextual factors set the boundaries of generalizability, and as such constitute the range
of the theory.
What is a legitimate value-added contribution to theory development?
Most scholars will add on existing knowledge instead of being the new Einstein. What and How. Adding
or erasing a factor to a consisting framework is not considered to be theoretical enough. If you want to
add or change a current framework, the ‘how’ in your analogy is very important.
“Science is fact, just as houses are made of stone… …yet a pile full of bricks is not a house and a collection
of facts is not necessarily science”. Therefore, theoretical insights come from demonstrating how the
addition of a new variable significantly alters our understanding of phenomena by recognizing our casual
maps.
The ‘why’ is pretty hard to make factual, since it often requires perspectives from other fields. This is the
most difficult one and generally precipitates reconceptualization of affected theories. It is insufficient to
point out the limitations in current conceptions of a theory’s range of application.
There is an upside to applying old models to new settings: the feedback loop. Researchers learn new
elements of the model, which should improve it overall. Moreover, applying an old model in a new
setting and showing that it works is not intrusive in itself. Preferably, investigate qualitative changes in
the boundaries of a theory rather than quantitative expansions. (Basically, adjust the model and explain
why it does / does not work in setting X as well)
Three broad themes underline this section:
1) Theoretical critiques should focus on multiple elements of the theory
2) Theoretical critiques should assemble and arrange compelling evidence (S.O.U.R.C.E.!)
3) Theoretical critiques should propose remedies or alternatives (only critiquing leaves no room for
comparison)
What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
What, how and why are the building blocks but there are also other relevant factors that make a paper
from good to great:
-Clarity of expression
-Impact on research
-Timeless
-Relevance
The following 7 key-factors, in order, cover substantive issues:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
“What’s new?”
“So what?”
“Why so?”
“Well done?”
“Done well?”
“Why now?”
“Who cares?”
Which value added? (Scope and degree)
Practicable in organizational science? (Not just fun on paper)
Logic and evidence compelling?
Completeness + thoroughness
Paper well written? (Lay-out as well as content itself)
What will it do with the previous knowledge?
Demographic/Audience?
Week 3 Writing the introduction/Theory section
Lecture 3 - Powerpoint
Scientific research
Hourglass model
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction à
o describe the definition of your important
keywords
o Highlight the relevance of your study
Literature review
Hypotheses & conceptual model
Method
Results
Conclusion & Discussion
When you have your research question (lecture 2) ask yourself: why is it important to answer the
research question? For this there are two sub-steps you can use:
o
o
Add a description of relevance à Why do we want to know….
Add a summary of relevant theory à Because we know little about …
Toulmin method
•
A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their audience. It is, in other words,
the main argument.
•
The grounds of an argument are the evidence and facts that help support the claim.
•
Finally, the warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the
grounds to the claim.
•
Backing refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases, the warrant is implied,
and therefore the backing provides support for the warrant by giving a specific example that
justifies the warrant.
•
The qualifier shows that a claim may not be true in all circumstances. Words like “presumably,”
“some,” and “many” help your audience understand that you know there are instances where
your claim may not be correct.
•
The rebuttal is an acknowledgement of another valid view of the situation.
Including a qualifier or a rebuttal in an argument helps build your ethos, or credibility. When you
acknowledge that your view isn’t always true or when you provide multiple views of a situation, you build
an image of a careful, unbiased thinker, rather than of someone blindly pushing for a single interpretation
of the situation.
Writing the introduction
• Follow the following format:
1. Paragraph 1: The problem – why is the study important and relevant. Give key definitions.
2. Paragraph 2: what do we know? Acknowledge what others have said about the topic.
3. Paragraph 3: What don’t we know? What is the gap in the literature?
4. Paragraph 4: This is the research question; and this is how I am going to address it.
• All the paragraph should be linked and interesting (so that the reader becomes interested)
5. Paragraph 5: This is what I found, and this is why it matters. Contribution of the study.
6. Paragraph 6: The structure of the paper (literature review, methods, findings, discussion,
conclusion).
Literature review
A Literature review shows the current state of the research: cite all papers used to answer the RQ and
write down all theories to prove the information. Important: every statement should have a citation in
the text that is linked to the bibliography.
•
•
•
•
•
Is guided by the research question
Defines and clarifies the issue(s) or problem(s) specified
Summarizes previous investigations in order to inform the reader of the state of current research
Leads to conceptual frameworks
Something you do as well as something you write
Aim of the literature review
1. Introduction establishing purpose
2. Body analyzing the literature
3. Conclusion summarizing key findings
Format of a literature review
Reviewing the literature and selecting sources
• Literature search
o Obviously, a systematic literature search is key
§ Note down the keywords you use to search. Use your subject words/conceptual model
words.
§ You may need to use a database.
§ Your thesis should mainly be based on academic sources.
§ Include references as your write.
§ There are no guidelines as to how many papers to read.
Article: What Theory is Not (Sutton & Staw, 1995)
This essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory.
There is little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, but
there is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory.
Despite this consensus, however, authors routinely use these five elements as theory. We explain how
each of these five elements can be confused with theory and how to avoid such confusion.
There is confusion because of different reasons:
1. Lack of consensus on exactly what theory is, hinders the development of strong theory
2. Editors or reviewers might reject a well-articulated theory that fits the data based on their own
tastes.
3. The process of building theory is itself full of internal conflicts and contradictions.
We explain why some papers, or parts of papers, are viewed as containing no theory at all rather than
containing some theory. Five elements:
1. References are not theory: using references (so mentioning facts) does not immediately
contribute to a good research if you don’t explain the arguments behind it. Authors need to
explicate which concepts and causal arguments are adopted from cited sources and how they are
linked to the theory being developed or tested. à ask HOW
2. Data are not theory: Empirical results can certainly provide useful support for a theory. But they
should not be construed as theory themselves. Prior findings cannot by themselves motivate
hypotheses, and the reporting of results cannot substitute for causal reasoning. à ask WHY?
3. Lists of variables or constructs are not theory: A theory must also explain why variables or
constructs come about or why they are connected. à WHY
4. Diagrams are not theory: Diagrams or figures can be a valuable part of a research paper but also,
by themselves, rarely constitute theory.
5. Hypotheses (or predictions) are not theory: a list of hypotheses cannot substitute for a set of
logical explanations.
EXTRA From test exam:
We argue that when customers are presented with a brand that has a good reputation, customers are
more likely to purchase that brand’s products. While there hasn’t been any empirical work on the subject,
we argue that this relationship exists based on the fact that most reputable marketing scholars think this
might be the case (Hawabhay, Abratt & Peters 2009, Teas & Agarwal 2000). 10) Which of the following
statements is true?
I. This is an invalid argument, on the grounds that this is ‘an appeal to authority’
II. This is an invalid argument, on the grounds of arguing by ‘majority view’
a. Only statement I is correct
b. Only statement II is correct
c. Both statement I and statement II are correct
d. Neither statement is correct
Appeal to authority à false validity because of thinking someone with authority did or said something so
it should be right.
Majority view à false validity because a group says it, it can still be wrong.
Making consensus explicit (identifying strong theory)
‘Strong theory, in our view, delves into underlying processes so as to understand the systematic reasons
for a particular occurrence or non-occurrence’. As Weick (1995) put it succinctly, a good theory explains,
predicts, and delights.
Journals facilitate stronger theory & reconsider their empirical requirements
Some prominent researchers have argued the case against theory. There is a lot of bad or mediocre
theory written in papers.
2 important aspects: theory testing and theory building. Most of the papers don’t include both as these
are contradictory requirements. Some review parties like ASQ want to bridge the gap between these 2
aspects. They ask authors to engage in creative, imaginative acts. On the other hand, ASQ wants these
same authors to be precise, systematic, and follow accepted procedures for quantitative or qualitative
analysis. Most of the contributors to our field’s research journals are rarely skilled at both theory building
and theory testing.
Companies like ASQ that review the paper will mention the critique. The result is usually an author who
either dutifully complies with whatever theoretical ideas are suggested or who becomes so angered that
he or she simply sends the paper elsewhere. By going through rounds of revision, a manuscript may end
up with stronger theory, but this is not the same as saying that the authors have actually learned to write
better theory. Learning to write theory may or may not occur, and when it does occur, it is almost an
accidental byproduct of the system.
The result of this behaviour of reviewing companies is that contradictory demands for both strong theory
and precise measurement are often satisfied only by hypocritical writing. Theory is crafted around the
data. The author is careful to avoid mentioning any variables or processes that might tip off the reviewers
and editors that something is missing in the article. Peripheyal and intervening processes are left out of
the theory so as not to expose a gap in the empirical design. We are guilty of these crimes of omission.
So its not that researchers are interested in the study and set goals to prove the study, BUT they
measure things and adapt concepts and arguments to support the measurements as they are afraid that
reviewing companies otherwise would decline their papers.
We argue that journals ought to be more receptive to papers that test part rather than all of a theory
and use illustrative rather than definitive data.
Our recommendation is to rebalance the selection process between theory and method. People's natural
inclination is to require greater proof of a new or provocative idea than one they already believe to be
true (Nisbett and Ross, 1980). New ideas are difficult as they require more prove.
Some recommendations
Our recommendation is to rebalance the selection process between theory and method. We need to
recognize that major contributions can be made when data are more illustrative than definitive. If theory
building is a valid goal, then journals should be willing to publish papers that really are stronger in theory
than method. Authors should be rewarded rather than punished for developing strong conceptual
arguments that dig deeper and extend more broadly than the data will justify. We need to be as careful in
not overweighting the theoretical criteria for qualitative papers as in underweighting the theoretical
contributions of quantitative research. A small set of interviews, a demonstration experiment, a pilot
survey, a bit of archival data may be all that is needed to show why a particular process might be true.
Subsequent research will of course be necessary to sort out whether the theoretical statements hold up
under scrutiny, or whether they will join the long list of theories that only deserve to be true. A lot of
small value adding papers can lead to great theoretical development in the end.
Summary chapter 9 : BOOK Academic Skills for Interdisciplinary Studies (GPK)
Chapter 9: the structure of your article
Argumentation structure
The argumentation structure is the backbone of your text and the path that you, the writer, mark out for
the reader. Establishing a clear structure before you start writing can make it easier to stick to the line of
the argument (and you will become less lost in the details). It also becomes easier to see which parts you
can delete and where there are still holes in your argument.
Objections
As the author of a text, it is therefore wise to reflect on potential objections, because refuting (or even
negating) them can strengthen your position
Framing an argument: Pitfalls
Circular reasoning
Appeal to an authority
Description
When you repeat your position
rather than substantiating it
with an argument
The fact that an authority takes
a particular position on a certain
issue is not in itself a sufficient
guarantee that the argument
holds. You will have to explain
Example
For example, if you say that a
plan is bad, ‘because it is simply
no good’
This theory is correct (Author A,
2011)
The majority view
why the expert takes this
position.
If many people, or the majority
of a group of people, hold a
particular opinion or take a
particular position, this does not
mean that it is right
For example, even if the
majority of the population
thinks that parliamentary
democracy is the best form of
government, this is not
indisputably true
For example, if research shows
that rich people are on average
happier than poor people, you
cannot conclude that money
makes people happier. Other
factors may be at play, and you
could also argue it the other
way around: it might be that
someone’s level of happiness
influences their economic
success
For example, if a lot of research
shows that disarming the
Middle East would lead to
peace, you cannot conclude
from this that if there is no
disarmament, there will
certainly be no peace. There are
also other ways of achieving
peace
For example: ‘Why does God
exist? You prove that God
doesn’t exist.
False links (spurious
correlations)
The fact that two things are
connected does not
automatically mean that one
follows from the other.
Logical fallacies
Conclusions or views that do not
follow logically from the
arguments that have been
discussed
Reversing the burden of proof
When you claim something, you
should be the one to assume
the burden of proof for your
claim. Saying that someone else
should prove the opposite of
your claims is misleading and
does not substantiate your own
view
Two opposing options are
For example: ‘What would you
advanced, while there are in fact rather see covered by medical
many more
insurance: Viagra pills for macho
men or at-home care for old
grannies?’
Insinuating that an intervention For example: ‘If we include
or measure will take things from Viagra in the basic package for
bad to worse, while it is far from medical insurance today, then
guaranteed that it will have this tomorrow we’ll be reimbursing
effect.
breast enlargements.
False opposition
The slippery slope
The structure of a scholarly article à note that this is the same as the empirical cycle
You discuss the theory (based on previous research) in the introduction to your article, the testing of the
data in the middle section, and the conclusion and evaluation in the discussion section. This division is
known as the IMD structure (Introduction – Middle section – Discussion).
It can generally be said that the IMD structure is based on the ‘hourglass model’.
Introduction (broad)
The content of the introduction and the conclusion is broad, In terms of content, the introduction starts
broadly and becomes narrower.
Structure: Your introduction begins with a broad, general introduction, with the definitions, and an
explanation of the concepts that you’re going to investigate.
You can also add an hypothesis: what answer can you expect to find, based on the literature? Or provide
a brief description of the experimental setup: what is your dependent variable, what is your independent
variable, and which indicators are you going to use to test them? After the design section, you can
conclude your introduction with a prediction or expectation, whereby you explain what you expect to
come out of the variable
Middle section (narrow)
When doing research, you choose one or more dimensions that fit with your research question. This
means that your report becomes substantively narrower, because you can only investigate part of the
concept.
Structure: write an introductory paragraph every section à then reporting of information/results à
possible evaluations can be done while in the process à end with an sub conclusion in every section.
Remember to link headings etc.
Discussion (broad)
In the discussion section, you again formulate the substantive findings more broadly and generally, so
that you can nevertheless say something (cautiously) about the whole concept.
Structure: Start your discussion with a short summary of the most important results à draw one
overarching conclusion from this that directly answers the research question (and sub-questions) à
evaluate this conclusion. You can do this by going back to the theoretical framework that you described
in the introduction. Does this conclusion support the theory? Why does/ doesn’t it?
Eventually you can add starting points for follow-up research in order to complete the empirical cycle, as
they count as new observations. Think about if it works in other contexts, etc.
Another part that often features in a discussion section is a description of the limitations of the study.
The last part that often features is the implications of your study.
Recently, there has been increasing emphasis on valorization; politicians highlight its importance and
researchers are increasingly being asked how their research results can be valorized. Valorization can be
seen as a process of creating social value from knowledge, for example by transforming this knowledge
into products, services, processes, and new enterprises
Week 4 Methodology: designing your research, collecting data
Part 1 video: Qualitative research – Theory about how to do a study
Qualitative research
Part 1: Doing research
The empirical cycle:
Part II Research methods
Quantitative research versus qualitative research
Quantitative research
Qualitative research/data
Type of data, samples and
analysis
Numerical data; large random
samples; statistical analysis
Textual data; small(er) nonrandom samples; qualitative
analysis
Data sources
Structured/closed: e.g.
surveys; experiments;
simulations; closed interviews;
archival data
Semi-/unstructured/open: e.g.
in-depth, open-ended
interviews; observations;
documents
Relative advantages
‘Statistical generalization’:
generalizability to large
populations; understanding
trends/patterns
‘Analytical generalization’:
understanding the level of
applicability of theory in
different context
Relative disadvantages
‘Superficial’: context is less
well understood; may affect
the validity of results.
Difficult to generalize to larger
populations. Reliability is more
difficult to achieve.
The appropriate research method depends on (1 and 2 most important):
1. The nature of your RQ.
a. Who/what/where/how many questions à quantitative
b. how/why questions à qualitative
2. Extent to which theory is pre-formulated,
a. High-very high à Quantitative
b. Very low-medium à qualitative
3. Available resources (time, money, help), less resources can lead to more quantitative data.
4. Ease of access to individuals, groups, etc.
Part III Designing and conducting high-quality qualitative research:
• A. Key characteristics of qualitative research
o Rich, in-depth understanding of real-world ‘situations’; individuals’ interpretation and
behaviors
o Active engagement with people in organizations (or other contexts)
o ‘Inductive’ or ‘abductive’ approach (rather than ‘deductive’)
o Very suitable for answering ‘how and why’ research questions
• B. Designing an conducting high-quality qualitative research: choosing a qualitative research
method/strategy for data collection
o Important examples of qualitative research methods in business and management
research:
§ Case studies
§ Action research
§ Ethnography
Case studies à study complex real-life organizational situations over which the researcher has no/little
control. Purpose: to make an original contribution to knowledge.
Steps in high quality case study research design (Yin):
1. Determining the case study’s questions (how and why)
2. Formulation propositions (proposition used for qualitative research, hypothesis for quantitative
research).
3. Selecting cases, choose an event, individual person, group of persons, organizations, group of
organizations) etc.
4. Determining data sources and data collection methods
5. Determining the logic linking data to the propositions
6. Determining the criteria for interpreting the findings
Types:
1. Abductive: you can have a starting point/theoretical ideas and
use data to refine your ideas which can be tested later.
You don’t test it yourself.
2. Inductive: study data in a specific context and try to build a
theory based on this
3. Deductive: develop hypotheses and testing them
Single case: you select an unusual, extreme, revelatory case.
Multiple cases: you can adopt replication logic. Literal replication if you see the same research done and
you think it will be the same in your setting. Or theoretical replication if you use research that is already
done and check to see if it works in your setting as well.
Key quality criteria for case study research
•
•
•
•
Construct validity à are you measuring what you want to measure?
Internal validity à explain how one event leads to another, how do we know that the variables
are connected?
External validity à is the thing I found out also likely to happen in another situation?
Generalizability
Reliability à if someone does the same study, will he/she come to the same conclusions?
Data triangulation is the use of a variety of data sources, including time, space and persons, in a study.
-Action research à little from theory little from practice approach.
-Ethnography à infiltrating in an organization, really practical approach
Part 2 video: practical example of a study (also paper about franchisees & change (Croonen &
Brand (2015) à NOTE that it is the conclusion/discussion part from week 7
Introduction the beauty & care cases: it’s about 4 companies selling medicines/health products without
prescription from a GP needed. DA/ETOS/Drogist/SPLIT. The companies are based on a franchise business
format. Owners have the benefits of the efficient network and processes, in return they pay a percentage
of the profit.
Following Yins steps in high-quality case study design
1. Determining the case study’s questions (how and why) à Looking at already existing research
showed that there was a ‘static view’ on franchisor-franchisee relationships. They made it look
like a new owner joined the network and it works well, however there were also disadvantages.
There was a lack of knowledge how franchisees respond when they have to adapt major
franchisor initiated strategic changes.
The goal: to generate/refine theory on antecedents on franchisee responses to franchisor
initiated strategic changes.
2. Formulation propositions (proposition used for qualitative research, hypothesis for quantitative
research) à No priori propositions but some theory as starting point: agency theory, franchisor
control/standardization versus franchisee entrepreneurial autonomy. Readiness to change
perspective: expected satisfaction and trust affect change recipients’ responses to change. EVLN
(exit, voice, loyalty, neglect): people can engage in different type of ways to ‘problematic events’.
Constructive response: Voice/loyalty, Destructive response: exit/neglect.
3. Selecting cases, choose an event, individual person, group of persons, organizations, group of
organizations) etc. à Focused on one single case. Purposeful sampling: one ‘extreme case’ due to
‘extreme’ franchisee responses (many ‘exits’). Embedded units in the case: two strategic change
processes (SCP1 and 2). Looked at franchisees with a constructive and destructive responses
during the SCPs.
SCP1 (change 1st attempt): DA felt threat of new competitors selling for lower prices. Therefore
they tried adapting B&C’s market positioning and standardisation level. In the end a lot of owners
were destructive and the change didn’t really work.
SCP2 (change 2nd attempt): There is still tension between desires franchise system
standardization (of DA network) and desires for entrepreneurial autonomy (of independent shop
owners). This tension becomes even more pressing when a franchisor aims to impose
transformational changes that require franchisees to make major financial investments in their
businesses and/or to adapt their trade practices. This resulted in 2 ways of responses:
Groups: green arrow à theoretical response: there is expected that franchises have different responses
(sometimes constructive sometimes destructive). Red arrow à literal replication: there is expected to
have franchisees with the same type of reasons for the response.
4. Determining data sources and data collection methods à data triangulation by doing interviews
with franchisees. Interviews with CEOs and managers of franchisor. Using written documents:
format handbook, strategic plans, year reports, etc.
Important for interviews: use the how and why à try to get to know the information they give
you
After interviews, transcribing and coding interview, three phases: Open coding: making codes directly
from the data. Axial coding: reflecting on the open codes: checking overlap and differences. Selective
codes: Linking the axial codes to concepts
.
5. Determining the logic linking data to the propositions à Asking the owners how did they respond
and why? + how their response developed over time. For example you could see that constructive
responses had a more positive expected profitability and destructive responses were caused by
lower expected profitability attitude.
6. Determining the criteria for interpreting the findings à pattern matching: with expected pattern
theory and or rival patterns (alternative explanations). Are there other reasons for franchisee
responses? Maybe the researches thought responses could be divided in 2 groups
(constructive/destructive) while shop owners had different reasons for responses.
The paper is abductive and leaves space for others to test this study.
Conclusion:
Qualitative research is valuable for obtaining in depth knowledge, by which we can develop/refine
theories. However watch out for the risk of ‘data diarrhea’ and you need a clear plan to structure your
study and to warrant the quality of the study
Week 5
Lecture 5: Introduction to data analysis
Data analysis: Regression (in this lecture we only cover regression but there are many other methods).
The lecture will talk about the basic only.
Key idea 1: Covariation
•
•
Based on advertising
o We can (roughly!) predict sales
Covariation
o Variables ‘move together’
o The stronger the conversation …
o … the stronger the relationship
o (there is a pattern)
o Positive covariation (both variables go
up)
o Negative covariation (one variable goes
up, one variable goes down)
Key idea 2: Correlation coefficient
•
•
•
•
Captures covariance in a number
Correlation: between -1 and +1
High values à more closely on a line
Only says something about the consistency. Doesn’t distinguish ‘effect size’ from ‘consistency’
Key idea 3: drawing a line
•
•
•
•
Goal: quantify relationship
Simplest method: drawing a line
Want to predict sales? Follow the line!
Equation:
Key idea 4: Steeper lines = stronger relationships
Key idea 5: Our model is never perfect
R2
•
•
•
•
•
•
How much variation in our data does our model ‘explain’?
Relative measure of ‘model quality’
Between 0 and 1
Higher numbers = better model
R shows how well the line represents the points
Expecting high R2 is usually not realistic
Low R vs high R
•
•
Right figure the R is high
Left figure the R is low
Figure 1: Key idea 5
Key idea 6: uncertainty
•
•
•
•
•
Goal of the research: learn about population
o But we have only collected a sample
o This gives uncertainty
Determined by..
o Sample size
§ Sampling 10.000 customers: more info
than 10
o Variance (spread)
§ If people vary a lot in their responses,
much more likely to sample ‘atypical’
cases
Solution: Confidence intervals
o Margin of error
o We found:
§ 0,83, unlikely to be exactly 0,83 in
population
§ Cl: [0,73, 0,93]
Technical notes: confidence intervals
o Usually shown: 95% c.i.
§ Contains true slope 95% of time.
o Also other ci’s available! (e.g. 99% ci)
o Method of calculating: too advanced for now
o Note on CI vs p-values
P-values: hypothesis testing
o H1: advertising is (positively) related to sales
o The P-value tells you how likely it is that your data could have occurred under the null
hypothesis.
§ A null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between two
phenomena
Write down our results
• To analyse whether there is a relationship between advertising and sales (=What)
• We have performed a regression analysis of advertising on sales (=how)
• This regression [was/was not] significant, R2=0.471 F(1.298)=265.1, p=0.000 (=result)
• Advertising is significantly related to sales, B=0.826, t-16.28, p=0.000 (=conclusion)
ANOVA table in regressions
• Tests hypothesis that all coefficients in the model are 0.
• Same as previously: we’d like to see low p-values
Key idea 7: in moderation, slope depends on a third variable
• Allows advertising effects to vary depending on price attractiveness
• One equation, but leads to multiple regression lines
•
Three types of moderation
1. Positive: Effects are strengthened
2. Negative: Effect are weakened
3. Crossover interactions: An initially positive effect turns negative (or vice versa)
Writing down our results
• To analyze whether price attractiveness moderates the relationship between advertising and
sales (=what)
• We have performed a moderation analysis
• Our results [were/were not] significant
• Prices attractiveness positively moderates the effect of advertising on sales. That is, the effect of
advertising on sales is stronger at greater levels of price attractiveness (=conclusion).
Week 6 Writing a results section
Lecture 6 - Powerpoint
Results section: structure
•
So, general structure
o What (is our goal)? à is told in introduction
§ In order to test the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty
o How (which technique/approach)
We conducted a regression analysis of satisfaction on loyalty
o Results (usually: overall model)
E.g. group 1 had significance of … and group 2 had a significancy of…
o Results i.r.t. hypotheses, and conclusion
E.g. based on significancy the results showed that group 1 had more waste then group 2.
There was not expected such high significancy for waste…. So our hypothesis…. Also
overall result/model fit (r squared test) can be mentioned.
•
Moderation analysis
o What
§ To analyze whether competition moderates the relationship between product
quality and customer loyalty.
o How
§ We have performed a moderated analysis
o Results
§ Our results [were/were not] significant
o Res/Conclusion
§ Competition positively moderates the relationship between product quality and
customer loyalty. The effect of product quality on customer loyalty is stronger at
greater levels of competition.
Papers versus thesis
•
Paper is constricted to space/words and thesis is not
Common mistakes
•
Things/factors tested that were not in the conceptual model. Stick to what the initial plan was.
DON’T change the factors or test different things if there is no significant relationship (called
fishing expedition).
•
Unclear structures/pictures/language. You should walk the reader through the hypothesises in
chronological order.