Management Research Methods - Essay Example

?Section A Management and Business research is dominated by two approaches often referred to as qualitative and quantitative. Outline what you see asthe main differences between these two research approaches, with particular reference to philosophical underpinning. (500 words) The two main approaches to research are the quantitative and the qualitative approaches. Quantitative research, as the name implies, deals with the gathering, analysis and interpretation of data in numerical form, while qualitative research deals with all information that are not expressed in numbers. Numerical data are exact and specific; therefore, their treatment is necessarily objective. On the other hand, qualitative data are descriptive and experiential, and therefore their treatment is subjective. There are necessary differences in the philosophies that govern quantitative and qualitative research methods. These philosophies define the world-view the method assumes when conducting research. The quantitative method is grounded in positivism, which asserts that the knowledge that is gathered through research can only be significant if it can be measured. It proceeds from the theory of Auguste Comte, the French philosopher, that the world is an external environment that can be seen externally and measured objectively. Opinions, impressions, and perceptions that cannot be measured are not significant in a positivist approach (Zawawi, 2007, p. 3). Qualitative theory, on the other hand, is based on the philosophy of phenomenology. This philosophy states that the world and its reality derive their meaning from people (Husserl, 1946 in Zawawi, 2007, p. 3). The experiences of people concerning certain phenomena provide their significance, thus their subjective understanding of the event or phenomenon is what comprises knowledge. This is why qualitative approach uses cases, descriptions and narratives to convey the knowledge gathered about an event. Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches highlights certain important contrasts. One is that the quantitative method is deductive while the quantitative method is inductive. The deductive approach begins from established theory that relates to the topic being researched, and then goes on to seek evidence of its application in the real world. A hypothesis is tested based on the chosen theory, then situations are tested to see if they comply with the theory. On the other hand, the qualitative method makes use of the inductive approach, which begins with the focus of the research – the issue or problem, or the organization under study – and at the end of the research develops a theory that would explain the phenomena observed (Greener, 2008, p. 16). Furthermore, the quantitative approach is positivist while the qualitative is interpretivist. The positivist approach is characterized by the use of the scientific inquiry most closely associated with the natural sciences. The positivist approach emphasizes those observations that may be made with the senses, and promotes the process of experimentation, of statistically proving or disproving hypotheses, and to explain the discrepancies or deviations from the rule. Positivism emphasizes the objective or normative. On the other hand, quantitative techniques lean more towards interpretivism, which in turn is closest to the social sciences. This branch of the sciences attempts to interpret social phenomena in a way that explains consistently their causes and effects (Greener, 2008, p. 16 -17). There are many other differences between the quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, but these are their most important contrasts. Section B With reference to Qualitative approaches describe the common methods used for data collection and analysis. (1000 words) According to Creswell (1998), qualitative research is defined as: …an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyses words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting. Cresswell’s definition is squarely set within the social sciences, and rightly so because it is in the social sciences that the interpretivist-constructivist techniques developed to their greatest potential in their own right. Traditionally, the qualitative approach was not considered a true class of research methodology but rather as a technique for preliminarily scanning the relevant situations so as to identify the right theories and formulate the proper hypotheses to support a quantitative analysis. Rossiter (2008) stressed that qualitative research is not “scientifically inferior” to quantitative research, nor is it a “pre-quantitative” step as is commonly misconceived (p. 915). In some applications, qualitative research excels over quantitative, particularly where depth of detail and thoroughness of inquiry are concerned. Even with a quantitative element, the analyst in a qualitative study must: (1) discover the relevant variables, (2) decide the causal relationships between them, and (3) derive the inferences of the sample scores on those variables, unlike the purely quantitative which makes a singular determination based on established theory (Rossiter, 2008, p.916). In the social sciences, from which business research derives its methodologies, there are two principal types of research. The first is ethnographic research, which may also be known as its variants which are: naturalistic, interpretive, case study, participant observation, and phenomenological research. The second is analytical research, which differs from ethnographic research in that analytical research is primarily the non-interactive study of documents, while ethnographic research puts the researcher in an active, interacting role in the field (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1996, p. 123). Analytical research includes historical research, which essentially intends to derive information from recorded data of events that had occurred in the past. There are as many as 20 types of qualitative research in the major social sciences discipline alone (Tesch, 1990). According to the Family Health International, out of all the qualitative research methods available three are most commonly used. These are participant observation, in-depth interviews, and focus groups. Participant observation is best employed for data collection when observing naturally occurring behaviors in their usual contexts or settings (FHI, 2003). Participant observation is categorized by other authors as just one type of direct observation, which includes also non-participant observation. Direct observation, as a category of qualitative research, involves an observer, whether external to the group or a participant within the group, who takes note of the details of the actions or situations he/she intends to study as they naturally enfold within the group. Its purpose is to develop a deeper level of understanding and appreciation of the value and beliefs held by the members of the group (RDSU, 1996). In-depth interviews are most effectively used for collecting data on the personal histories of individuals, their perspectives, and their experiences most especially when sensitive topics are being investigated (FHI, 2003). Indepth interviews and focus groups (discussed in following paragraph) are built on the same principles. Interviews are conducted individually, usually in the place where the good or service is made available to the customer, or in a similar contextually relevant location. Seldom do in-depth interviews rely on pre-determined questions, because they allow the interviewees to freely express their opinions and sentiments. One useful technique in in-depth interviews is the critical incident study, where interviewees are asked to specifically comment on a particular incident or real event instead of dwelling on general comments (RDSU, 1996). Focus groups are ideal for gathering data on the cultural norms of a group, and “in generating broad overview of issues of concern to the cultural groups or subgroups represented” (FHI, 2003). As earlier mentioned, focus groups are akin to interviews because they involve face-to-face questions and answers between researcher and subjects. In this method, the researcher assembles a small group of subjects who are determined to have necessary personal knowledge of the topic under scrutiny and who could provide valuable, grounded opinions on it. The size of the group is intentionally limited to a small number, so that its members may feel free to express their opinions and have the opportunity to do so, which a large group may prevent. A topic guide is prepared beforehand by the researcher, in order to direct the discussion, and the researcher acts as moderator to the discussion. A range of different aspects concerning the research topic is discussed, the discussion electronically recorded, transcribed, and then analysed. The advantage of a focus group over the interview is that in a focus group, the members express varied opinions and are encouraged to interact and react to one another’s opinions. This is not meant to create controversies or spark needless argumentation, but to flesh out multifaceted issues and thereby gain new insight that takes all perspectives into consideration. The result is a richer understanding of the various aspects of the topic that are brought about by debate and an exchange of views. For many authors, the case study is also explicitly categorized as a type of qualitative research, although some would argue that case study is a specie of the other methods. Case studies draw emphasis upon a detailed contextual analysis of a particular limited event, or a limited number of events, in order to draw insights into the relationships of elements in the case. One of the principal criticisms of the case study method is that it focuses on a single situation or event, and therefore the observation it draws are conclusive only to that particular case. There is no assurance that these same observations shall be relevant in other cases. However, the reporting of several case studies in a single inquiry is possible where the topic permits. For instance, tools for estimating the robustness of relationships are provided by meta-analyses that reports multiple case studies (Woodside, 2010, p.2). References Barbour, R S & Barbour, M 2003 “Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, May 2003, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p179-186; DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x Creswell, J W 1998 Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Donalek, J G & Soldwisch, S 2004 “An Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods.” Urologic Nursing, Aug 2004, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p354-356 Family Health International 2003 “Module 1: Qualitative Research Methods Overview” Qualitative Resesarch Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Accessed 11 November 2011 from http://www.fhi.org/nr/rdonlyres/etl7vogszehu5s4stpzb3tyqlpp7rojv4waq37elpbyei3tgmc4ty6dunbccfzxtaj2rvbaubzmz4f/overview1.pdf Greener, S 2008 Business Research Methods. Ventus Publishing ApS Goodwin, W L & Goodwin, L 1996 Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education. Teachers College Press, New York, NY. Heckl, D & Moorman, J 2010 “Uptake and success factors of Six Sigma in the financial services industry.” Business Process Management Journal. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 436-472 Oke, A 2007 “Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies” International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 564-587 Peninsula Research and Development Support Unit (RDSU) 1996 Helpsheet 9: Qualitative Research Methods. Accessed 10 November 2011 from http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/prdsu/helpsheets/Helpsheet09-May03-Unlocked.pdf Rossiter, J R 2008 “Qualitative research rules” International Journal of Advertising. Vol. 27 issue 5, pp. 915-919 Shields, L & Twycross, A 2003 “The difference between quantitative and qualitative research.” Paediatric Nursing, Nov 2003, Vol. 15 Issue 9, p24 Tauber, E M 1987 “Qualitative Vs. Quantitative.” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p7 Tesch, R 1990 Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. Routledge. Woodside, A G 2010 Case Study Research: Theory, Methods, Practice. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., Bingley, UK Zawawi, D 2007 “Quantitative versus qualitative methods in social sciences: bridging the gap.” Integration & Dissemination, Sep 2007, Vol. 1, p3-4 Read More