Research Methods

Michael Wood
michael.wood@port.ac.uk
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~woodm/rm/rm.ppt
This file contains draft slides which will be updated.
30 November 2009

Reading
There are many books available e.g.
Saunders et al (2007)
Robson (2002)
Easterby-Smith et al (2002)
And many others browse in the library
These books vary a lot: some are better on the practical aspects, others on
the theoretical aspects. Sometimes you will get different advice from
different sources, so you need to consider the rationale behind the
advice. Robson is good on most aspects, although Saunders et al is
probably more student-friendly

Contents

Overview of academic business research

What must be in a project plan and a project?
Formulating research aims
The design of research projects
Evaluating research
Statistical analysis for research
Qualitative data analysis
Analysing data and presenting results
Philosophy of research
Questionnaire design
Interview design and qualitative research
Reminders about the project
Interviews and qualitative research more detail
More on literature reviews

Overview of academic
business research
Reading: browse through a book on
research methods: e.g. Saunders et al
(2007), Robson (2002)
These slides intended as a brief summary of
the important points
Reread them when you are starting your
project

Advice on research methods

Common sense dont forget this!
Articles and books reporting similar
research should be discussed in the
project
Books on research methods in general
Focus on chapters relevant to your project.

Purpose and characteristics of

academic research
Purpose:
Discover truth about something; and/or
Find a good way of doing something

Must be
Systematic and as thorough and trustworthy as possible
Clearly written and with sufficient detail for readers to
check credibility
Ethical

Types of research include

Large scale surveys (of people, organisations, events, etc)
analysed statistically
Small scale surveys with emphasis on qualitative detail
Case studies (to see how something works in detail)
Experiments (change something to see what happens)
Models can be set up, tested and used for
Participant observation (observe as participant)
Action research (combine research and action)
Evaluation
and may other possibilities be imaginative!
Many projects combine several of these

Sources of data: many possibilities

Interviews
Including focus groups, Delphi technique (Robson,
2002:57), various approaches to eliciting comments (e.g.
photo elicitation Sam Warren)
Questionnaires, including via email (be careful )
Documents (minutes of meetings, company reports, etc)
The web
Databases within organisation, of share prices, etc
Observations of various kinds
Etc . Be imaginative!
Sources of literature is a different issue (Judiths session is very
important for this)

Experiments (randomised controlled

trials)
Put people (or whatever you investigating) in randomly
assigned groups, give the groups different treatments, and
compare groups to see what differences emerge.
Used for testing drugs, diets (http://tinyurl.com/yp2t2o ,
http://tinyurl.com/489hns ), educational methods, different
designs for websites, social policies, etc. Lots of examples
in Ayres (2007)*.
Advantages of experiments over non-interventionist
research
Disentangle cause and effect. Can control variables you havent
even thought of. If done well evidence can be very convincing.
Can investigate new things
* Ayres, Ian. (2007). Super Crunchers: how anything can be predicted. London: John Murray.

But
Experiments are often impractical or unethical
Difficulties include
Hawthorne effect
Failure to assign groups at random (this matters a lot
because )
So use less rigorous quasi-experiments instead (Grant &
Wall, 2008)* e.g. in action research you may do a before
and after comparison. This is a sort of crude experiment but
it is not as convincing as a proper RCT.
* Grant, A. M. & Wall, T. D. (2008). The Neglected Science and Art of Quasi-Experimentation:
Why-to, When-to, and How-to Advice for Organizational Researchers. Organizational
Research Methods (published online, July 18, 2008).

Finding a suitable topic

Interest
Career
Feasibility
Usefulness

How to do research

Read about topic

Draft aims of research. Clear, simple, focused.
Draft literature review.
Draft research plan check it is really likely to
meet your research aims. Check again.
Do research/analysis
Draft research/analysis and
recommendations/conclusions
Check it fits together and revise all sections
If it doesnt fit together revise aims and

Practical issues
Timing
Plan this remembering that your supervisor
may suggest extensive changes.
Gantt chart may help.

Ethics (remember the form!)

Access to information.
Take care: this is often difficult!

What must be in a project and

a project plan?
Reading
Project guidelines
Proposal guidelines
Saunders et al (2007), or another similar book

What must be in a project?

Abstract (short summary of project including conclusions)
Background and aims (what youre trying to find out and why its
important)
Literature review (of relevant previous research which you will build on or
extend)
Research methods plan and justification (what you did to meet the aims,
and why it was a sensible approach)
Analysis (in detail, to convince sceptical readers and impress examiners:
important tables, diagrams etc must be in the text, only details in appendix)
Results, conclusions, recommendations, limitations, further research
References (list works cited in text in alphabetical order)
Appendices Ethics form, extra details for the reader
Flexible designs can be more flexible but everything must be there!

Features of a good project

Obviously important and interesting
Difficult to disagree with because
Arguments and analysis detailed, clear and obviously
valid
Possible objections considered and if possible answered

Fits together
Aims met by methods (check this in your project plan)
Conclusions follow from analysis

References and citations

You must give references to publications which
you draw on or quote
Exact (word for word) quotes must be in and
the reference must be given
Maximum about one paragraph

Use one of the standard referencing systems

preferably the Harvard (see university website)
Copying word for word without and
reference is treated as cheating and you will fail!

Harvard referencing system

Very important to use this (or another established
system)
Seems easy to me, but causes a lot of difficulty
Check library website (search for Harvard) and/or
copy an academic article or book.
All references in text like Smith (2001)
Then alphabetical list of references at the end.
Should include everything referred to, and nothing
else.

What must be in your project

plan (proposal)?
See assignment description
You may be able to put parts of it in your
project!
You should describe and justify your
research methods in as much detail as
possible

Writing style (1)

Keep it simple.
Short sentences
Clear, short paragraphs
Clear subheadings
Read it through to make sure you can follow
it. Swap with a friend and check each
others

Writing style (2)

1 I think the EMH was true in this situation
2 In my opinion the EMH was true
3 In the authors opinion the EMH was true
4 The evidence suggests that the EMH was true
5 This shows that the EMH was true
Use 4 or 5.
Avoid 1, 2 or 3 because it gives the impression that
its just your opinion and that other, even wiser,
people may see it differently.

Writing style (3)

I work for and the problems are / I
interviewed three managers.
2 The author works for and the problems are
/ The author interviewed three managers.
3 Then problems of this organization are / Three
managers were interviewed.
Opinions vary here. I (MW) prefer (1). Others prefer
(2) or (3).
Check with your supervisor.
1

Formulating research aims

Reading most research methods books,
e.g. Saunders et al, 2007

Research aims or questions

Usually start from vague idea
Then formulate a clear aim, or list of aims, that
your research will achieve. Think of these as
hoped-for outcomes.
Alternativelyformulate a clear question or list of
questions.
This process may require some creative thinking
Techniques like brainstorming and mind maps may
be useful

Aims, objectives, questions

You can formulate your research aims as
aims (or objectives if you prefer that word)
or questions.
These are different ways of saying the same
thing. Doesnt matter which you use, but dont
confuse things by having aims and questions
May be helpful to have a list or hierarchy of
aims, but keep it simple

Hypotheses
Hypotheses are statements whose truth you want to test, or
predicted answers to research questions (Robson, 2002)
Occasionally appropriate as a top level research aim
e.g. to test the hypothesis that Working at home
improves quality of life
Usually best to avoid hypotheses when formulating main
research aims because questions or aims tend to be more
flexible
e.g. How does working at home affect quality of life?
Null hypotheses have a (controversial) role in some
statistical analysis ( as you will see), but they are not
relevant to formulating your overall research aims

Research aims or questions

Research aims or questions should:
Be clearly and simply expressed
Fit together (so that you have a coherent project)
Clarify the intended outcome and scope of the research

Your research aims or questions should also

Be relevant to your degree
Be achievable
Present a reasonable level of challenge

Research aims or questions

Must be research aims, not business or personal aims.
However, business or personal aims may be part of the
background motivating your research aims, and
research aims would normally include the aim of
making recommendations to people or organisations.
Should generally have a limited scope or focus.
The danger with general aims is that they lead to
superficial research.
May relate to theoretical issues. You may be aiming to test,
modify or create a theory

Theory
Theory includes models, explanatory
frameworks, generalisations, recommendations
Examples .
Your research should link with any relevant
theory. It may

Use a theory
Demonstrate that a theory is useful
Test a theory
Modify a theory or create a new theory

Also ask yourself

Is the research worth doing?
Are there any ethical or political problems?
Is it possible? Have you got access to the
necessary data?

Is it really going to be useful?

What use do you want the results to be? This may
be a practical use to find out how to make more
money, or to make life easier or a contribution to
theory, but it should be something that is really
worth achieving. Must pass the so what? test.
May help to clarify your aims if you imagine youve
done the research and write down what you think your
conclusions and recommendations might be.

Then work backwards from what you want to

achieve to the best methods to achieve it.

Example of research aims

The aims of this research are to
1 Describe the decision making strategies of
small investors
2 Determine the effectiveness of these
strategies
Any comments? Does this seem reasonable
for a Masters project?

Another example of research

aims
The aims of this research project are to
Evaluate Method X for planning
mountaineering expeditions
If necessary propose and justify Amended
Method X for planning mountaineering
expeditions

Another example of research

aims
What are the important quality problems in
Company X?
How serious are these problems?
What is the best strategy for reducing these
problems?
Any comments? Does this seem reasonable
for a Masters project? Does it matter that
they are expressed as questions?

Three more examples of research

aims
1. The aim of this research is to investigate the role
of the internet in banking.
2. This research project aims to explain activity
based costing.
3. The aim of this project is to
Test the efficient market hypothesis for the Athens
stock exchange, and
Determine how global warming will influence share
prices.

Any comments? These are not reasonable for an

Masters projects! Why not?

Possible research topics

Research in a specific organisation
Best if they are likely to implement any
recommendations
Take care you have adequate access to data
Easier if you have a recognised / paid job there and / or
know key players well.

Research based on publicly available data

Eg share prices, the www, published statistics

Research based on surveys of the public

These are just some possibilities. There are more

Design of research projects

Design means deciding on the methods and
approaches which will best achieve your aims
Needs thinking out carefully starting from your aims
Check the proposed design will achieve all your aims
The design may require the use of a theoretical framework
which should be explained and its use justified
May incorporate several approaches (e.g. earlier slide)
Some advocate flexible designs (E.g. Robson, 2002)
E.g. Poppy Jamans summary. Any comments?
E.g. check aims and designs of these projects.

Designing research is not easy!

Think about how you can best achieve your
aims
Consider all possible types of research
Be imaginative
Think about it again
and again
Check youve found the best way you can
for meeting all your aims

Group exercise
Design a research plan for one of the projects below, and do
a pilot study for part of it. (You may find you need to
make the aims / questions more precise.)
Michaels project. The provisional aims are:
1. To evaluate the suitability of the PBS website for
prospective PhD students
2. To suggest improvements to the website from this
perspective
Alisons project on the impact of a Blackberry on
family/work-life balance. What are the problems and
opportunities, and what would you recommend?
or

Email project
How much time do people spend on emails, is it
time well spent, and if not how can things be
improved?
Provisional method: Survey to find how much time
is spent on emails, and respondents opinions on
whether this is time well spent, and on
recommendations (is this a satisfactory method?)
And / or other possibilities ?

A general design for a typical

Masters degree project
If the aim is to find a good strategy to "improve" X
in org Y, then a possible design may be:
1. Survey/case studies of Org Y to investigate problems
and opportunities
2. Survey/case studies to see how other organisations do
X and which approaches work well
3. Based on (1), (2), the literature, and perhaps creative
inspiration, consultations within the organisation,
simulation or modelling, devise a strategy likely to
improve X
4. Try/test/pilot/monitor the proposed strategy, probably
in a limited domain

Take care with opinion surveys

Suppose your research is about risk management
and its effectiveness. You decide to investigate by
means of a questionnaire and come up with:
1. 70% of people in the organisation think our risk
management is unsatisfactory
2. 60% think Method X is the best way of improving it

You then present this as the rationale behind your

recommendations to improve risk management.
But how do they know?
Surely the researcher should find out by rigorous and
sensible methods, rather than asking people who may
neither know nor care?

Exercise
There are many problems with interviews and
questionnaires. Your respondents may

Not know the answers

Not understand the questions
Be too lazy to think about the issues
Want to deceive you

Try to design the methods for a research project

without using interviews or questionnaires. (This is
not usually a good idea but it should help you to
consider alternatives.)

Then
Having designed your research get someone
to act as a devils advocate and tell you
Whats wrong with it why it may fail to
deliver what you are aiming for
What may go wrong
Would they trust the answer?

Evaluating research
Relevant to
Planning your own research. Use the following
slides to
Check your proposal
Check your final project

Critically reviewing published research

These slides are intended as a checklist for

your research and others

Good research should be:

As User-friendly as possible
Simple as possible given the message?

As Uncritisable (trustworthy) as possible

Trustworthiness or credibility is particularly important.
Can you trust the conclusions? Do you believe them?
Are there any flaws? Essential to give readers enough
detail to check.

As Useful or interesting as possible

Clear implications for future? New results?

In groups
Choose one of the articles you have been
given
Assess its
User-friendliness
Trustworthiness (pay particular attention to this)
Usefulness

Brief feedback session, then we will

compare your critiques with my slides

Trustworthiness of research:
main things to check
C
R
I
T
I
C
Each letter represents an issue you should
consider

Jargon
Most of these checks are covered by technical
jargon, concepts and techniques e.g. lots of types
of validity (internal, external, construct, face ),
lots of types of reliability, ideas about test and scale
construction (see Robson, 2002), etc
Read up only those areas which you think are
relevant. I have largely avoided jargon here.
Always check sampling always necessary to
consider whether your sample is likely to be
representative of your area of interest.

Deciding what is Cause and what

is effect
Important to try to work out what causes what, and how
strongly and under what circumstances, so that you know
what you should change to achieve a particular effect.
Take care may be more complicated than it appears (ISO 9000 and
profitability; drinking and thinking, storks and babies).
Variable you havent thought of may be the important cause!
Experiments (randomised controlled trials) for definitive answers, but
may be difficult, so
Quasi-experiments (e.g. a before/after comparison of a trial of a new
innovation) insead, but
May be lots of causes. Be suspicious of simple explanations (see
Taleb, 2008).

Deciding what is Cause and what

is effect more examples
A survey of organizations showed that those that used the balanced
scorecard were more profitable than those that didnt.
Does this show that the balanced scorecard makes firms more
profitable?
A survey showed that the average job satisfaction score for a
department rose substantially and significantly between 2006 and 2008.
In 2007 everyone was sent on a weeks computer course in the
Seychelles.
Would you recommend a computer course for other departments?

Does high staff turnover cause poor performance or vice

versa? (Glebbeek and Bax, 2004). Does extraversion help
people get promoted, or vice versa (Moutafi et al, 2007).
Does it matter?
What caused the fall of the Berlin Wall?

To ensure results Representative

check Sampling
1.

Decide what youre interest in often called the

population or target population.
Usually this is too big to look at everything so take a
sample. Normally we want the sample to be
representative of the population or wider contextso
you must check if this is likely.
Need to consider how the sample is selected and its size.
Badly chosen samples can be biased and give very
misleading results.

2.

3.

E.g. TV audience research, word length, NRE, non-response

bias in surveys, survivor bias in stock price samples

How to sample

Clarify target population (the whole group of interest)

May be a population of people, organisations or

Decide sampling approach. There are many methods of

taking a sample from your target population, including

Random
Stratified
Purposive
Convenience (or opportunity, haphazard, accidental)
Cluster, snowball, quota, etc (see a book)

Decide size of sample need to balance cost with

information obtained. If you analysis is statistical,
statistical theory can help

Random sampling
Make a numbered list of the target population (a
sampling frame)
Use random numbers to choose sample
Each member of population has the same chance of being
selected (and its independent of any biases)
Each member of sample selected independently
In practice, likely that some members of the sample cant be
found or wont help, so the sample may be biased. Difficult
to deal with this possibilities

The principle is to ignore all variables and choose at

random. This allows for all noise variables.

Which sampling method?

Usually random samples are best for large samples, and

purposive samples for small samples analysed
qualitatively.
Done properly, with a large enough sample, random or
stratified samples (probability samples) should be
reasonably representative of the population. Cant
assume this about purposive or convenience samples
(non-probability samples) because these are selected by
factors that are likely to bias the result in one direction
or another.

Sampling in practice
Many samples are biased and so will not give a good idea
of the population regardless of sample size.
E.g. NRE, non-response bias in surveys, survivor bias in

Ideal for large samples is random sampling, but this is

often difficult to do properly.
E.g. Iraq war death rate (see http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ for
another approach), TV audience research.

Be suspicious of statistical results from purposive or

convenience samples
Need to be especially careful with small, purposive
samples for detailed analysis consider the purpose and
choose accordingly

Three surveys to check accuracy of

NRE phone service which is right?
1. A Consumers Association survey used a sample of 60 calls,
mainly about fares. The worst mistake was when one caller
asking for the cheapest fare from London to Manchester was
told 162 instead of the cheaper 52 fare which was available
via Sheffield and Chesterfield. The percentage correct was
32%

2. A reporter rang four times and each time asked for the
cheapest route from London to Manchester. The proportion of
the four answers which were correct was
25%

3. An NRE sponsored survey found that the answers were

97% correct
(Source: Breakfast programme, BBC1 TV, April 30 2002.)

More sampling problems

An MBA student sends out 100 questionnaires to
100 organisations asking if they would be
interested in a particular service. Twenty are
returned, and of these 6 indicated they may be
interested in the service
There are 650 firms in the relevant industry sector. How
big is the market for the service? Are you sure?

Suppose you wanted to find out how common it is

for women aged 30-40 to enjoy running.
How would you choose a sample to ask?

Other examples and exercises attached

Measurements (Indicators)
If you want to find out whether customer
satisfaction, or quality or profits have improved
you must have a sensible way of measuring them.
Moreno-Luzon (1993) used managers perceived
achievement of objectives as a measure. Can you see
any problems with this?
How would you measure quality of service in a casino?

How would you check if your proposed measure

is valid / reliable / right / accurate?

Things to remember with

measurements (1)
Conventional to distinguish between validity (are you
measuring the right thing?) and reliability (consistency)
If possible use an existing measurement system (with
acknowledgement / permission). This has two advantages
there may be evidence validating it, and you can
compare your results with previous results.
Remember that some informants may be biased, or too
lazy to give good answers, or just ignorant.
If possible use triangulation (check with information from
different sources)
Ask yourself whether your proposed method of
measurement really measures the right thing

Things to remember with

measurements (2)
Be especially careful with measures of value. This may have
several dimensions (Keeney, 1992)*. E.g. the success of a
firm might depend on profitability, worker satisfaction,
contribution to the community
If you are measuring the success of a change, remember
there may be several different criteria. E.g.
May be useful to use the average (mean) response to a series
of questions. Use your common sense to see if this is
reasonable, or if they should be kept separate. (See literature
on Tests and scales e.g. Robson, 2002: 292-308).
* Keeney, R. L. (1992). Valuefocused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking . Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Reliability of measurements
Same answer at different times?
If anything depends on subjective judgments, check
agreement between different judges
Eg marking projects

If youre asking a number of questions to get at the

same information, check the relationship between
answers to these questions with two questions use a
correlation coefficient, with more than two use
Cronbachs Alpha (if you are keen on stats!) see
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.htm

Exercise: how would you measure

??

Theoretical assumptions
If the research uses a theory, is the theory
right for the purpose? And is it a valid
theory? (Some theories, of course, are stupid
or wrong!) You need a critical evaluation in
your literature review.
A questionnaire or interview plan may be
based on assumptions about what is
relevant. Are these assumptions OK?

Is the research sufficiently

Imaginative?
Imagination helpful in
Thinking of hypotheses to explain things
Thinking of new methods for researching
Thinking of new ways of doing things

Many recommendations for boosting imagination

and thinking creatively e.g.
Brainstorming
Doing something else and coming back to the task
etc

Making sure that you are not

being misled by Chance
Could your results just be due to chance?
Have you taken account of sampling error? (If
you repeated your research with another sample
are you sure the answer would be the same?)
Is the sample large enough?
Null hypothesis tests or confidence intervals can
be used to answer these questions.
Are the measurements reliable?

The first CRITIC

Cause and effect assumptions OK?
Representative sample?
Indicators (measurements) OK?
Theoretical assumptions OK?
Imaginative enough?
Chance ruled out as explanation?
(Checks needed are mostly common sense except for Chance.)

The second CRITIC

C Claim?
R Role of the claimant?
I Information backing the claim?
T Test?
I Independent testing?
C Cause proposed?

Teaching skepticism via the CRITIC acronym and the skeptical

inquirer
Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct, 2002 by Wayne R. Bartz

Two extra checks

Use of a devils advocate or critical friend. Remember
the problem of confirmation bias you are likely to
be more enthusiastic about evidence that confirms
your pet ideas than about evidence that undermines it!
Get someone to try and be critical and find difficulties
with your research then fix or (if unfixable) discuss
the problems.
Triangulation compare results from different
sources. Applies to data, methods, observers, theories
(Robson, 2002: 174).

Anything else?
Is this list complete?
Does it address all the flaws you noticed in
the paper you looked at?
What would you add or change?

Checklist: the 3 Us, the CRITIC

and Extra checks
User-friendly?
UnCRITICisable (trustworthy)?
CRITIC

Useful?
Extra checks
Triangulation
Devils advocate (critical friend)

Another measurement problem

Andy had answers from lots of questions on a SD, D, N, A,
SA scale
He wanted a measure to tell him which questions produced
responses which gave a a clear overall view (COV) from
his respondents
His defined his measurement as
COV = abs(SD+DASA) N
(where SD is the number of SD responses, etc, abs = absolute value)

He then highlighted questions for which COV > 0

Do you think this is a sensible measurement?

Critique of an article
Do you accept what the article says, or are there flaws
in the research?
Think about the article! Use your common sense.
Check the CRITIC.
Is it worth publishing? Could you do better?
Read round the subject e.g. other research on the
same theme.
Would the research benefit from some qualitative
work, p values or confidence intervals, case studies,
different perspectives, experiments

Statistical data analysis

Go to
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~woodm/stats/StatNotes0.ppt

Qualitative data analysis

Aim is detail and depth of understanding
Demonstrate and understand possibilities, but not how
frequently they occur
Use direct quotes () as evidence and to reduce
danger of imposing your perspective
Sometimes may be helpful to
Summarise in a table or similar
Use coding scheme to analyse statistically (but be careful if the
sample is very small!)
Further possibilities in Saunders et al, Robson,
www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/, Thorpe and Holt (2008)

Analysing data and presenting

results
Questionnaires and interview plans, and possibly
some data, in appendix
Graphs and tables and important quotes from
interviewees etc in the main text
Focus on your research aims, not the questions in
your questionnaire
Readers want an analysis which shows how your aims
are met. They dont want to know the answers to all the
questions in your questionnaire!

Use appropriate summaries e.g. tables of

averages, or of main points from interviews

Literature review

See Saunders et al (2003) Chapter 3

Focus on relevant books, articles and theories
Brief on general points
More detailed on research of particular relevance
to your project you will need to search for
articles using the library databases
Critical
Should lead into your method and analysis
Must be properly referenced!

Philosophy of research

In the textbooks you will find discussions of positivism, social constructivism,

phenomenology, etc, etc.
In my view, Robson (2002) is the best research methods text for philosophical
concepts.
Almost all concepts and distinctions here open to serious criticism see
Robson (2002). Most management research articles dont mention philosophy.
I wouldnt suggest focusing on these ideas unless you are interested in which
case be critical of what you read!
If you do want to go into philosophy, use a book like the Penguin Dictionary
of Philosophy (Mautner, 2005) or Thorpe and Holt (2008) to check what the
words mean.
Also note that there are arguments against being prescriptive about research
methods and philosophy in books with titles like
After method: mess in social science research (Law, 2004), and
Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge (Feyerabend, 1993)

Further reading and references

http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~woodm/qualquant.pdf

Some ideas which are worth mulling

over
Detailed study of a small sample vs less
detailed study of a large sample
Induction vs the Hypothetico-deductive
method (Popper) vs Following a framework
/ paradigm / theory vs Deduction
Subjective vs Objective; Facts vs Values

Some misguided platitudes

The following are often assumed (I think wrongly):
There are two distinct kinds of research:
Quantitative (=positivist=hypothetico-deductive), and
Qualitative (=phenomenological=inductive).
Instead

Positivist research (only) starts from hypotheses.

Instead ...

Academics tend to disagree about many of these issues. If you

do decide to go into them, please think hard, and dont
accept everything you read in the textbooks uncritically!

Qualitative vs quantitative
Quantitative usually means statistical often with largish
samples
Qualitative means focusing on qualities usually with
smallish samples studied in depth
Disadvantage with statistical approaches is that the data on
each case is often very superficial
Disadvantage with qualitative approaches is that case(s)
studied may be untypical and cant be used for statistical
generalisation
Often best to use both approaches. This is known as
mixed methods search for this keyword in library.
This distinction often confused with other distinctions

Regrettable tendency to reduce

things to a simple dichotomy
If youre a soft and cuddly person:
Soft and cuddly (e.g. interpretivist, qualitative,
inductivist ) is good
Hard and spiky (e.g. positivist, quantitative,
deductivist, ) is bad
But if you are a hard person you will probably reverse
good and bad above. There are really many
different dichotomies. Reducing them all to one is
neither right nor useful.

And
To hard and spiky people, soft and cuddly
research is lacking in rigour
To soft and cuddly people, hard and spiky
research is nave and lacking in richness

Induction vs hypotheticodeductive method

Generalise from the data without preconceptions
(induction)
Grounded theory. Rigour is in process used to generate theory
from data

Versus
Use data to test hypotheses or theories (hypotheticodeductive method)
Karl Popper. Rigor is in the testing.

Theory building vs theory testing is much the same

distinction (see Saunders et al, 2007, pp 117-119)
However, I dont think these are the only choices

Other useful approaches besides

induction and hypothetico-deduction
Use a framework or theory or paradigm (Kuhn, 1970) to define
concepts, questions, and measurements, but without trying to test the
theory
Arguably what most scientists do most of the time (c.f. Kuhn, 1970).
Rigour is in ensuring the theory is a good one, and in using it properly.
Deduction from data, theories and framework. E.g. the differences between
two quality standards can be deduced.
Rigour is in checking the deduction and the info you start with
Differs from the hypothetico deductive method in that the result is the
deduction itself, not a confirmation, rejection or revision of a
hypothesis or theory
Note that this contradicts the assumption in Saunders et al (2007: 117-119)
that there are just two approaches deductive and inductive. I think
they mean hypothetico-deductive, and they omit the two very important
possibilities above.

An example
How would these four approaches work
with a project of interest to you

Karl Poppers ideas (1)

Science works by putting forward bold
theories (or hypotheses) and then testing
them as thoroughly as possible
Provisionally accept theories that have
withstood this testing process
Theories must be sufficiently precise to be
falsifiable otherwise not proper science
(eg Freuds theories are too vague)

Karl Poppers ideas (2) - eg

Einsteins theory of general relativity predicts that
light from a distant star will be bent by a small
amount by passing close to the sun. Newtons
theory predicts the light will not be bent.
Only possible to check during a total eclipse of the
sun. In an eclipse in 1918 light was bent as
Einsteins theory predicted
Newtons theory is falsified; Einsteins lives on
and seemed much more credible.

Karl Poppers ideas (3)

Theories can come from anywhere guesswork,
intuition, other theories, etc
The process of criticising theories and trying to
show they are wrong is vital for science
The method applies to both natural and social
sciences
How would you apply Poppers ideas to a
management research project? in practice, has
elements in common with a critical attitude

Critical attitude
Try to anticipate and discuss criticisms
Get a friend to act as a devils advocate
Your work should be so convincing that it cant be
disputed!
Think of any criticisms you have of articles you
have read. Make sure the same faults dont apply
to your work.
Word critical sometimes used in a slightly
different, more specific, sense.

Questionnaire design:
summary
Read a (chapter of a) book on questionnaires
Develop a pilot. Remember questionnaires are far
more difficult to design than they appear! Check
with your pilot respondents:
Is it clear?
Is it interesting / appealing / user-friendly / not too
long? Would you answer it?
Does it provide (only) the information you want?

Are you still sure a questionnaire is a good idea?

Questionnaire design (1)

Write down what you want to find out
Closed questions
Tick boxes
Rating (Likert) scales

Open questions
Pros and cons of each
Check your questions will enable you to find
out what you need to for your research

Questionnaire design (2)

Covering letter
Pilot it
3-4 nice friendly people to tell you whats wrong with it
Pilot the analysis too

Consider sample to send it to

Anonymity / confidentiality
How to send it / get it back (email?)

What to do about non-response?

Questionnaire design (3)

Far too many questionnaires about - many of them
very silly. What is the response rate likely to be?
Would you fill it in?
Are you sure a questionnaire is necessary???
Many companies have a policy of not responding
to questionnaires
Are there any alternatives?
Check with your supervisor before sending it out

Take care with opinion surveys

You can ask someone
What she did last week
What she does in general terms
Her opinion of what she does
What she thinks other people do
Her opinion of what she thinks other people do
How she thinks things can be improved
What she thinks about particular suggestions about how things can be
improved
What she likes / wants / values
Etc
Think about what type of question you are using and whether it is really useful

Interview design: in brief (1)

Read a (chapter of a) book on interviews

Follows, or precedes questionnaire, or stands alone
Be clear what you want to find out
Consider telephone interviews
Small sample. Dont do too many interviews.
Plan your questions. Should be open-ended and
flexible, and aim for a detailed understanding
Probes and prompts

Interview design (2)

Ask for permission to tape record
Transcribe interesting bits to get quotes for your
project
Get interviewee relaxed. Anonymity /
confidentiality (take care here!)
Check youve covered everything
Send interviewee transcript afterwards?
Some transcripts or parts of transcripts in
appendix?

Reminders about the project

Research aims should be simple, explicit, focussed, motivated, useful

Literature review should focus on relevance to your project
References should be complete and in order
Methods should be the best which are feasible.
Analysis chapter should show how hard and skilfully youve
worked, and why readers should believe you. You need to convince a
sceptical reader who may want to know details of how your data was
obtained e.g. source of samples, location of interviews (pub or
office?), etc, etc and analyzed.
Conclusions and recommendations should summarise what you have
found, and clearly meet the research aims. Also discuss limitations.
Changing your mind is to be expected if necessary rewrite aims
after doing the research!

Reminders (2)
Docs/links at http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~woodm/projects
Keep to the 15,000 word limit. You can get a good mark with
13,000 words but not with 17,000 words.
Remember the ethics form no form, no pass!
Be particularly careful about NHS ethics clearance
Make use of your supervisor (see Project Guidelines)
Plan the timescale (Gantt chart) allow time for delays
Allow time at the end for your supervisor to read it for you to
make any necessary amendments
If its good, consider publishing a summary in a journal. Ask
your supervisor.

When starting your project you

should

Have a clear aim, and a rough idea of your methods and the relevant
literature, and a few ideas about problems
Make an appointment with your supervisor and discuss what you will
do and the timescale. Take your proposal and comments
Remember your supervisor may have a holiday planned agree when
you will meet / email. Usual to send drafts of chapters when completed
Remember the deadline and plan back from this. Send your supervisor
a draft of the project at least a month before the deadline
Project guidelines at http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~woodm/rm
Practical guidelines on statistical analysis at
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~woodm/stats/statnotes0.pdf
Any questions to michael.wood@port.ac.uk

Interviews and qualitative

research: more detail
I am grateful to Alan Rutter for the next few
slides, some of which I have edited slightly

Primary data collection: interviewing

Useful for accessing peoples perceptions, meanings,
definitions of situations, eliciting their
constructions of reality, etc.

Alternative types
structured
semi-structured
in-depth

Ethical considerations

Forms of qualitative
interviews

F
F

Qualitative interviews

One to one

Face to face
interviews

Telephone
interviews

After Saunders, et al, 2000

One to many
Focus
group
interviews

Interview respondents
Who will be interviewed and why?
How many will be interviewed and how many times?
When and for how long will each person be interviewed?
Where will each person be interviewed?
How will access to the interview situation be organised?

Sampling for small sample

qualitative research
Usually best to use theoretical (purposive)
sampling - the selection of individuals who you
think will best contribute to the development of a
theory
Results apply to immediate situations
May be tentatively generalised, but the small
sample means

Difficulties with interviews

Mistrust by respondents
e.g. researcher is a management spy
Loyalty to organisation/colleagues
Adherence to stereotypical views rather than their own
inner feelings and knowledge
Complete indifference
An opportunity for respondent to sell their ideas

Managing the interview

Preparation for the interview
the interview schedule

Beginning the interview - establishing rapport

Communication and listening skills
Asking questions
sequence and types of questions

Closing the interview

Verifying interview data

Body language
Material evidence
e.g. company/factory tour

Writing notes
as soon as possible after interview

Use informant verification and

secondary sources

Remember
Need to demonstrate rigour
Good research acknowledges bias and the
need to expose it.
Devils advocates are useful for revealing bias
and other problems, but are seldom used.
Is all research is biased?

More on Literature reviews

I am grateful to Andreas Hoecht for the next
16 slides
Dont forget the literature should be clearly
focused on your research aims, and it
should be critical in the sense that you
should point out strengths and weaknesses
where appropriate

Research methods: writing a

literature review (Andreas Hoecht)

1.Finding material
2. Mapping relevant literatures
3. Evaluating literature
4.Some practical hints

Writing a literature review

Finding material
There is no prescribed number of sources you
should use, it depends on the topic
Be wary if you feel that you are drowning in
material you found for your topic, it probably
means you have not narrowed it down enough
Be wary if you find no sources or very little
sources. You normally need some academic
sources to be able to write a meaningful literature
review

What secondary sources should

you use?
Books:
Use textbooks only to get an overview over a topic
Academic monographs (edited books with
chapters by different authors) can be very useful.
They often explore a topic from different angles or
cover different aspects of a topic
Dont use airport bookstall books as serious
sources

Secondary sources
Journals:
Peer-reviewed academic journal articles should
normally be the backbone of your literature review
They provide up-to date discussions of topics and
are usually more narrowly focused than textbooks
Trade journals (non peer-reviewed) can provide
good introductions to topics and overviews of
developments but carry considerably less
academic weight than academic journals.

(Secondary) sources
Sometimes you may be able to find article titles
like :A review of the literature in academic
journals. They can save you lots of work
Internet:
Make sure you are able to distinguish between
credible sources and Joe Blocks unsubstantiated
views
Reputed organisations websites can be good
sources of information (but may have a bias/selfinterest). (gov. Agencies, internat. Organisations)

(Secondary) sources
Dissertations and PhDs:
Checking dissertations stocked in the
library may help you to get a feel for what
is expected in a dissertation as well as
provide information on a topic
Government reports/EU reports/other
organisations reports can be very useful
(but are sometimes biased).

Searching for literature

The key is the use of electronic databases
Some databases are full text (you can download
articles directly), others are bibliographic
databases (you need to check with library or use
inter-library loan requests)
Business Sources Premier/Emerald Full
Text/Econlit/Science Direct are all recommended
Be patient and creative in the use of keywords

Searching for literature

CD-Rom newspaper databases (FT,
Economist) can be useful tools
Financial Data and Marketing databases
mainly provide primary data

Mapping out relevant literatures

Dont put everything you find or everything you
read in your literature review
Time spent on familiarising yourself with and
assessing literature for relevance is never wasted
Only after you have gained a good overview over
the literature will you be able to decide on your
particular angle and your research questions

Mapping out relevant literature

Your database search should tell you how much
and what type of literature is available
For some well-researched topic you will be able to
concentrate on the literature directly dealing with
your specific topic
For other research ideas, you may need to think
about related areas or similar experiences in
other industries or possible insights from other
subject disciplines for enlightenment

Mapping out relevant literature

An simple example: If you are interested in TQM
and small firms you may wish to
Look at the TQM literature in general for the pros
and cons, constraints and motives
Identify success and failure factors from the TQM
literature
Check the small business literature for general
business conditions and constraints
Check the small business literature to find out if
these success factors apply there

Mapping out relevant literature

You can draw this as a conceptual map of
overlapping circles or as a flow diagram if
this suits your learning style
Brainstorming and drawing conceptual
maps is best done after you have gained a
feel for the literature from your literature
search

Evaluating literature

This becomes easier with experience

When reading literature:
identify the key arguments that are made
The reason(s) for the conclusions drawn
They should be either derived from logical
deduction (a conclusion following
necessarily from premises) and /or based on
empirical evidence

Evaluating literature

Check the logic of the arguments made

Does this necessarily follow?
Check the supporting evidence
Is this data relevant? Is it meaningful and
accurate? Could it be interpreted in another way?
Which data would I need to challenge this?
Check for flaws: tautologies, simplistic analogies,
redefinition of terms, moral judgements (ought to)

Some practical hints

Make sure you refer to key texts that are frequently cited in
the literature
Find out whether there are different schools or camps
in the literature and cover their positions.
Use your research questions to structure your literature
review
Check the validity (logic, empirical evidence) of arguments
made
Make clear on what basis you decide to side with a camp
or author or why you remain unconvinced or oppose a
judgement

Some practical hints

Dont overstate your case and be realistic about
what you can conclude
Be particularly fair to views and arguments you
dont agree with (avoid to be seen as biased)
Dont be shy to critique established trade
names(academic gurus)
Write your literature review for non-specialists
and avoid jargon
Write it well structured and easy to read