The Research Process Compared to Sekarans Research Roadmap - Assignment Example

To bring about a comprehensible and meaningful undertaking that seeks to answer problems or to explain certain phenomena, academic scholars and business leaders always turn into the time-tested way of checking, validating, and finding new ways of thinking and doing things: research. The whole research process is a compendium of many underpinning principles and steps that are used to make scholarly inquiries possible and systematic. In view of this, our group will examine one completed research work to look at this extremely important arm and component of research. Thus, this paper aims at looking how a particular research in the field of business is conducted. As such, the process or processes will be highlighted and compared to Sekaran’s research roadmap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Research Process Viewed and Analyzed the Sekaran Way There have been several suggestions on how research should be conducted depending on its nature, purpose, relevance, and contribution to the existing body of knowledge. In social sciences, especially in all fields related to business management and administration, many trends have surfaced out in the pursuit of delivering the best output both quantitatively and qualitatively so as to achieve certain goals necessary to the overall success of companies. Using the Sekaran research process, our group analyzed how Dennis Tourish and Paul Robson went about their research entitled Sensemaking and the Distortion of Critical Upward Communication in Organizations published by the Journal of Management Studies in its June 2006 issue. Dwelling on the importance of Critical Upward Communication or CUC as its point of inquiry, the researchers began by making sure that the readers can have a gist and eventually a full grasp of the whole paper by defining certain terminologies critical to the overall understanding and appreciation of the research. The research topic was then carefully introduced through the aid of “exemplifications and illustrations” which can be subsumed under “general observation,” the very first step in the process outlined by Sekaran. It was not difficult to identify the focal point of the research because it was overtly stated in its introduction coupled with clues that lead to the paper’s hypothesis. This is a clear deviation, at least in the manner or chronology of presentation, from the one outlined by Sekana. Steps 1, 2, and 3 were all jumbled up in the introduction. However, the paper can still be thoroughly understood as it presented its points and concerns in a deductive way. The literature review came right after the problem was explicitly stated by giving situational analyses and by citing previous studies that showed the need for a research work to be done as most of the studies that had been conducted before merely focused on communication flows that emanated from the upper layer of the hierarchical order of the management down to the lower part (Handy, 1993). With this, the research problem was clearly stated in a manner that veered away from the usual presentation of research problems wherein each step in the whole process is labeled according to what is stipulated in existing manuals. Instead, the authors opted to present their ideas in an expository form by using arguments that are well-embedded in the whole text. This creativity was achieved by weaving their thoughts neatly together in juxtaposition with what the previous studies had to say with regard to their general point of inquiry: organizational communication. This was carried out very methodically despite the overwhelming presentation of facts given in the introduction. Given their chosen slant in the presentation of their arguments, the Sekaran’s model cannot be employed in writing their paper as it would spoil the general readability of their research. In light of this, the paper looked like an exposition instead of a formal research, but was nevertheless “redeemed” by the degree of scholarly tone employed in the presentation of both the findings and their interpretation of facts to substantiate their assertions. This type of research normally requires a combination and a good grasp of discourse analysis, speech acts theories and sociological and organizational perspectives especially in the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data. Nevertheless, it is still evident that Sekaran’s seventh step still mattered and was in fact utilized to give right sense of direction to the completion of the research. However, it should be pointed out that there is a big difference in the writing process and in the research process itself (Ghauri, P and K. Gronhaug, 2002). The roadmap given by Sekaran could have been closely followed by the researchers of this paper every step of the way; but for presentation purposes, they obviously opted to think out of the box; and to effectively bring out the message embedded in their research, they made use of a writing technique that deviates from the commonly used way wherein each step in the research process is carried out and written out in the same way. This dash of creativity can be gleaned from the titles and subtitles that they used to guide their readers. Nonetheless, Sekaran’s influence still made itself covertly comprehensible. The diagram that was used clearly depicted the authors’ theoretical framework which provided the context in which the guidelines for the development of the research was discussed. This framework was needed to build and substantiate their theory through the development of a conceptual model (Denzin, 1970). From this step, the writers gained familiarity with their collected data and the preliminary theories that they generated to look beyond their initial impressions. Having that in mind, the variables were clearly identified and the hypothesis was clearly stated. Explication was then made easier and smoother because the search for the “why” behind relationships was established along with the definition of constructs and concepts involved. Being a purely library or secondary mode of inquiry, they established the validity and reliability of their work through the review of related literature. By doing this, they were able to build internal validity, raised the theoretical level of the research and sharpened the construct definition. The paper then discussed in length the different variables affecting the research by carefully integrating the results of their research (obviously through secondary sources) in an integrated and somehow didactic manner. In text citations helped clarify the correlation between their hypothesis and the existing or concluded research as a form of corroboration. Evidently, the skillful use of citations enabled the authors to successfully drive to their point: CUC. The whole research design then emerged clearly due to the lucid presentation of all the underpinning factors that made the point of inquiry watertight. The discussion of the whole research then became very smooth especially that the researchers were able to integrate their findings through secondary sources in a very convincing way. The data collected were presented vis-à-vis their research framework. This was then directed towards refining and finalizing their theoretical model. They compared their existing theoretical framework and the literature to verify their hypothesis. This was effectively carried out given their well thought-out methodology. With communication as the author’s main point of interest, it is inevitable that certain things not included in the research flow given by Sekaran were incorporated (Coldwell, D.A.L., 1981). As such the writing pattern reflected the content and the form of the research as it was not purely a business research. By and large, the backbone of the research was made evidently successful due to the holistic yet eclectic approach of putting their thoughts together. This would have not been made possible if the processes that they followed were weak, haphazard, and illogical. Sekaran’s guide seems to have been followed although not in a faithful chronological or spatial manner. Nevertheless, all the steps in the Sekaran guide are furtively present and indirectly applied.. Coldwell, D.A.L. (1981): “A dialectical approach to industrial research”, Psychologia Africana, Vol 20, 1-20. Denzin, N.K. (1970): The Research Act, Aldine, Chicago. Ghauri, P and K. Gronhaug (2002): Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide, (2nd Ed), Essex, Pearson Education. Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations, London: Penguin. Jaunch, R.R. (et al (1980) Structured Content Analysis of Cases: A Contemporary Method of Organizational Research, Academy of Management Review 5: pp517-26. Miles, R.H. (1975): An empirical test of causal inference analysis between role perceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 334-339. Olsen, W.K. (2004): “Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed”, InDevelopment Sociology, M.Holburn (Ed) Causeway Press, Ormskirk. Read More