What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It Matter - Assignment Example

Questions in Management Research & Paradigms Answers to Questions in Management Research & Paradigms Name: Instructor: Course Unit: Date: Section 1: The Context of Management research: 1. Past economic trends of scientific research reveal that, it contributed towards employment and growth (Romer, 1994) , as well as influencing the proportional improvement of the industrialized countries, this is strictly through proficient and timely production, dissemination and consumption of management research. This definitely has an implication that, research has a hand in economics, and the vice versa is true (Jaffe, 1989) due to the fact that, a stable economy implies that research proposals shall be funded effectively for production, dissemination and consumption of the respective research results. Simply put the dynamics of economy can promote and at the same time restrain research developments of innovation, inventiveness, edification, and cooperation The impact by the “peculiar economy” of science is indisputable, this is because it has affected the scientific labor markets and the human capital embodied in scientists, and hence inevitably the production, dissemination and consumption of management research works (freedman, 1960). For instance it has affected the dissemination of management research results, this is, “the flow that moves technology from the source to the users during a certain time period, by means of provided channels” (Coccia and Rolfo, 2002). Such provided channels include, communication, logistic, distribution channels, which are malfunctioned if a good amount of funds is not injected in. For knowledge to be produced vigor research has to be undertaken, right from the time of the proposal, to data collection, to its analysis, discussion and the evaluation of the output, that involves the calculation of indices indicating the production, productivity or impact of research groups (Stephan, 1996), lots of funds have to be inculcated into the mentioned phases. Purely without any fund or less the whole process shall have been killed. Hence, the implications of the ‘peculiar economy’ of science to production of management research results are vehemently undesirable. The ‘peculiar economy’ of science to consumption of management research results has an implication that the society at large will not be exposed to these results. Thus the changing role of management research to society will have lost meaning, since there is no innovation that the society can use to advance their knowledge, hence shape themselves as well as the society (Dasgupta & David, 1994). For instance how does the society mitigate various environmental degradations if they can not utilize certain information generated by researchers to do so? It becomes purely difficult for them. The ‘peculiar economy’ of science does also indicate that along the line production, dissemination and consumption of management research there will be loop holes of lack of transparency and quality research work, since to eke for a living the researchers shall either be selfish with their works or only give bits and pieces of inaccurate information of their work, this obvious affects the allotment of scientific information (Arrow, 1962). Another consequence of this is the publication of works of scientists that are known (Merton, 1968) due to believe that their work is the best and hence will be “eye catching” if published. In this context what the ‘peculiar economy’ of science implies is purely a functionless ‘machine’ of management research production, dissemination and consumption, because these three cannot work efficiently if no funds are available (Mulkay, 1976). 2. Regardless of hi-tech innovation in the publishing industry, the dimensions of decision-making within the publication process have not remained untouched ever since it grew to be widespread. Frost & Taylor (1995) argue that the four major dimensions of decision-making within the publication process are; efficiency, innovation, quality and fairness. Efficiency refers to the capability of the editors and reviewers to screen out low-quality works and force high standards in knowledge production among authors to with an objective of preserving a high level of quality of published works and in the process protect the status of the profession is reliable. Just as Frost & Cummings (1995) reveal; “Deciding what is false or even faked knowledge and distinguishing what is good scholarship from that which is the work of charlatans is not a simple matter,” the efficiency of the publication process is rendered effective if it is able to cut down such unscrupulous behavior. Quality in the publication process refers to production of scholarly material that has applied techniques and models that have by now been reputably established, rational control between different phases of the research, strong point of argumentation, as well as suitable recognition and consistency of the various elements of the article explaining the study. Quality ensures that the production of articles is not a competition of the amount of periodicals produced by one, because quality and quantity are certainly two different things (Bartunek, et al, 2006). Innovation in the publication process entails to the improvement of present techniques and models, the exploitation of new-fangled techniques and models, the rational presentation of new ideas, and the way to organize the ideas in a well-structured piece. Deetz’s (1995) analysis of information production illustrates that, we must be able to approach major problems with consensual procedures and to have important innovative discussions that reveal genuine value differences and advance the role of professional knowledge in a more ideal democracy. Whereas exhibiting a far above the ground echelon of strictness and organization to perform and explain a research, it is reasonably doable to maintain consign to the researcher’s innovation (Eden & Ackermann, 1998). This is what Frost & Taylor call fairness. It involves acknowledgement of authenticated material no matter how small or unknown the writer is. The publication process not being fair is what Staw (1995) bitterly points out that; Our own creative ideas are criticized as shallow, ungrounded, inconsistent with existing theory, or just plain wrong. Our methods are often viewed by reviewers as deficient, flawed, and inappropriate when they are, of course, cleverly adapted to the new theory or type of data. As authors, we try to innovate, but are soundly rebuffed. The contrasting demands of these values can be reconciled through; supporting and publication of additional motivated and innovative research, but not just incremental material that may be incredibly rigid methodologically but offers miniature information that is not actually new or out of the ordinary (Rynes, 2005). Another value is assortment of editors through merits, this prominence certainly is of assistance in narrowing down on those who have demonstrated bias in an evident approach or have been highly scathing in their interpretations (Bedein, 2003). The supremacy of the disciplines to nature the publication process and standards is a derivative of the capability to present a general framework of allusion in evaluating the significance of innovative discoveries and theories in management research. Lastly a performance management system should be throughout the publication process to evaluate for instance the editors and reviewer’s input and output to the reviewing process. In this way it will underpin existing norms, predominantly norms behind timely, developmental, and high-quality appraisals (Smigel & Ross, 1970). 3. In business and management research, the “transatlantic gap” is the crumbled constructive and cooperative business and management research relations between Europe and the United States which has eventually affected countries on either side of the Atlantic Ocean that earlier enjoyed and benefited from this relationships. The gap has been created due to: differing principles and inclinations a cross an ample variety of worldwide strategic concerns that include amongst others; security, state autonomy, and human rights (Kagan, 2000); and conspicuously detached premeditated advances to the institutionalization of international relations as a whole and their respective roles, this specifically revolves in the region of contrasting views like the use of power as opposed to rule of law (Jacoby, 2006). In the perspective of a gradually more aggressive international market for employment, trade and investment, the European countries and the United States should be obliged to forge greatly a more faultlessly incorporated transatlantic market that consents to business to leverage the mutual economic values, skilled workforces, existing institutions, and capacity for innovation (TABD, 2004). Such a market would ensure a cooperative management research, whose findings shall be equally shared thus a sound development of competitive international standards and principles. This would also furnish momentum to worldwide trade liberalization and thus further opulence beyond the transatlantic relation (Persand, 2002). This can only be true through the application of principles like: enactment of impartial legislations and regulations; laboring in the direction of convergence, acceptance and harmonization; ascertaining and facilitation of regulatory bodies on both sides but which work together; and extension of not only research information’s but doing research work together. Steffenson (2005) supports this by urging that, “a renewal of the west as a community of action is shaped by interests that are common even when they are not equally shared” Another proposal is the development and effective implementation of cost-effective defense measures that doesn’t grant the distortion of transatlantic business and management research (Gallis, 2008). Such developments include; amendments of custom codes and exchange of cargo information being transported. Developing collaboration between the researchers of the transatlantic relation, shall encourage an effective way of venturing in new areas of business and management research. The objective shall be innovation, excellence and production of goods, services, and accurate information that is dully embraced by the targeted population (Dannreuther & Peterson, 2006). Enactment of an effective system that oversees intellectual property rights and counterfeiting shall escalate innovation and competitiveness graphs to positive areas (Sampson et al, 1997). Efficient implementation of an effective intellectual property rights system, together with accurate regulatory, tax and business setting, will give confidence to researchers to venture into new spots and businesses in the region of Atlantic to develop the best products and services for their clients (Hawkins, 2006). This can become true if, if for instance a unit is time-honored to present a discussion for standard partnership to augment the efficiency of anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy exertions. The “transatlantic gap” in business and research management is not desirable at all, because it is hampering various business and management research activities that could play a very big role to the countries that are eclipsed by the transatlantic relation (Posen, 2001). Hence regardless of the past differences that made this relation to stumble result-oriented measures should be enacted for not only the benefit of this relation alone but also to the world. 4. The tactics the authors describe are vital to uphold principles, progress performance, grant trustworthiness and authentication of the information. Further more the tactics are significant in averting the distribution of immaterial results, unjustifiable assertions, objectionable explanations, and delicate observations (NAS et al, 1992). Pieces of writings in academic journals that have not undergone through the tactics described by the authors are liable to be gazed at with mistrust by other researchers and experts. This is stressed out by Frost & Taylor (1995) who argue that; “Major sources of irritation and disaffection from readers tends to be the lack of quality in journal content, sterile journal material, and irrelevance of articles.” The tactic of barrage submission to an editor enhances the possibility that disadvantages will be accredited and improved, thus a superior piece of writing at the closing stages of the process (Hull, 1988). These tactics like for instance referencing does prevent plagiarism and in this way acknowledges other people’s works and inevitably this creates innovation and advancement in knowledge, also they compel far above the ground values in information assembly between writers to preserve towering levels of excellent published articles and above all to shield the position of their line of work (Gilliland & Cortina, 1980). Merton's norms for how science should be conducted or that are taken to compromise the ethos of science are as follows; Universalism which does illustrate that each and every scientists can contribute to science in spite of race, nationality, culture, or gender; Communality which necessitates that scientific outcomes are the common assets of the whole scientific society; Disinterestedness according to which scientists are rewarded for performing in conducts that externally emerge to be self-sacrificing; and Organized Skepticism which ascertains that each and every initiative must be analyzed and subjected to scrupulous, well thought-out society inspection. These set of ethics were ordered by what Merton took to be the objectives and techniques of science and are obligatory on scientists (Merton, 1942). Indeed these four Merton’s norms of science do compare to the tactics described by Frost & Taylor for the reasons that; they both have an objective of immense truthfulness and evenhandedness, for instance whilst it is fundamental for editors and reviewers to filter out low-quality works and force high standards in knowledge production among authors to maintain a high level of quality of published works and to protect the status of the profession (Ziman, 2000). Merton’s norm of organized skepticism suggests that scientific assertions must open to the elements of decisive examination before being accepted. These are similar, because they do articulate the same significance but from different angles. Merton’s norms and the tactics described by the authors concisely guide one to be capable of facing broadly key tribulations with consensual measures and to have significant inventive deliberations that divulge authentic assessment distinctions and that progress the responsibility of certified knowledge in a more superlative social equality (Yalow, 1996). Merton’s norm of Disinterestedness dictates that scientists are rewarded for performing in conducts that externally emerge to be self-sacrificing; this is well compared to the tactic of ‘footnotes that acknowledge powerful friends’ as described by the authors (Beyer et al, 1992). According to Deetz (1995), “Publication has often become more of a credentialing process certifying expertise and assuring stature and appropriate club membership than a pursuit of socially important understanding.” Hence Merton’s norms of how science should be conducted are similar to the tactics described by Frost & Taylor, due to the fact that, they are both grooved in the methods and the disciplines of science that direct individual, researchers in the organization and presentation of their research hard work and that they also present a foundation for the civic to comprehend and assess the performance of researchers. 5. In the pursuit of understanding the humankind, we not only endeavor to gain knowledge of it, but us in one way or the other study from it (Kuhn, 1989). What helps us to solve the puzzle and narrow to the right information are the Paradigms. Therefore, a paradigm is a set of regulations and representations that we use to sort out information in our brains (Barker, 1992). In other terms it’s a method of classification and reduction of logical information. Paradigms may well be individual or cultural, and we each encompass various paradigms for a number of perspectives. Paradigms are important due to the fact that, they do help as filter all sensory input information (Dogan, 2001). For instance, they influence how we plan, document, and interpret our researches and surveillances. In fact without paradigms, our brains would relentlessly suffer from sensory overload. Paradigms channel our outlooks and are of assistance during sorting, arrangement, and classification of all information received by the five common senses. They are always complimentary of important disagreements and when they are not, they still function, for the reason that we are able to swing to and from different paradigms, even though not at all times as sound as we would wish (Creswell, 2003). Paradigms have an effect on the nature of inquiries we make as individuals and as traditions, when we strive to formulate a good judgment of our immediate environs. They integrate the familiarity and skills we have obtained from the time when we were born and as we grow to be accustomed to our physical, social, and spiritual environment (Kuhn, 1962). An example of how paradigms are important is, the way our minds use paradigms, sets o rules, to sort the noise in a crowd, organize and classify only the voice of the person talking to you. This entirely illustrates that paradigms matter a lot, because whichever sudden verdict one makes, it is always based on a paradigm (Thomas, 1996). Paradigms are just not ideas used by scientists, but they are indeed part and parcel of how our brains function and ultimately relied upon in business and management research. Paradigms in business and management research have a role of establishing new boundaries, and inform one how to behave within those boundaries in order to be successful (Masterma, 1970). They help us in establishment and attainment of objectives, through the processing, planning, organization and coordination of the business resources with a view of achieving the end results. In this way one realizes the; maximum utilization of production, reduction in the cost of production and distribution, and maximization of the margin profit. Hence Paradigms in business have a role of: shaping the business to provide excellent goods and/or services; championing the business to be innovative hence always at the competitive end; and provision of the right information, at the right time and at the right place (Clarke et al, 2000). In short they help the business to constantly look forward to its customer's needs, innovate its good and/or services to satisfy its customers, and to manufacture goods and/or services with excellence. Specifically in management research paradigms play a vital role in the way researches are designed, data is collected, and how experiments and observations are interpreted. They also impinge on the types of questions researchers ask and the respondents during the research time. The paradigms have also got a vital role of incorporating accumulated knowledge, experiences and beliefs to the researcher, in this way one can easily specify the validity of a certain concept (Gill & Johnson, 2002). When researchers distinguish their paradigms, it allows them to identify their role in the research process, determine the course of any research project and distinguish other perspectives. Also they help in implementation of research tools that are more; precise, sensitive and reliable, so that they can be used to detect observations beyond our sanity (Van Buskirk & McGrath, 1999). Basically paradigms in management research encompass three levels; the philosophical, basic beliefs about the world we live in; the social level, where guidelines exist as to how a researcher should conduct their endeavors; and lastly, the technical level, the methods and techniques ideally adopted when conducting research. 6. To a large extent of management research its only one paradigm that is at all times experimented upon. The researchers have a tendency of observing every paradigm as if it is in disagreement with the others (Greene et al, 1989). Therefore multiple paradigm research presents ways on how different paradigms could be researched on simultaneously. This plays a very important role in business and management because it offers an array of goals, aspirations and solutions to complications when formulating their plans. The developments and insights into business and management control phenomenon cannot be accommodated within the conventional perspectives (Goal, Authority, Culture and Evolutionary). The multiple paradigms are desirable in advancing knowledge about business and management because they do enable the comprehensive study of all the control processes without subscribing to any particular traditional perspective (Rocco et al, 2002). According to Pondy and Boje (1980): Under a multiple paradigm approach to inquiry, the function of theory shifts from that of ‘truth proving’ to ‘insight seeking.’ Since theories will no longer be competing for a single prize of being most nearly true, the simultaneous acceptance of several incompatible theories will no longer be problematic. What will matter is how much insight and understanding can be extracted from the entire constellation of theories generated from the several paradigms in use. The multiple paradigms are also desirable in advancing knowledge about business and management, because they guide one to understand how organizations are controlled by their environments through exchange relationships (Ritzier, 1975)). This is because most businesses are dependant on their environment. The fact that businesses are droopily attached implies that the conventional methods would not be effective in understanding the control systems of the respective union. Maxwell & Loomis (2003) argue that; organizational structures are at least partly the reflections of the myths of institutional environments. This can only be established through the exploration of the dynamics of control processes in institutionalized organizations by the application of multiple paradigms research. Multiple paradigms presume that in an organization there are several different control mechanisms within the same firm, operating at different levels (Perlesz & Lindsay, 2003). The implications of this in terms of performance are observable. Hence in this way they do help in advancing knowledge in business and management. This also does increase validity and interpretability of the research, this is because it will help in taking of results from different areas to develop or help in innovation of another area (Gay & Airasian, 2000). The process of business and management control is an organizing cycle that consists of the enactment, retention and selection sections. No single paradigm is suitable in advancing the knowledge of the three sectors (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Therefore for accurate understanding and advancement of the controlling course of action, the application of multiple paradigms is more suitable, because it would give way to appreciative harmonization that could not emerge from the conventional one paradigm research (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Multiple paradigms generate opportunity for both the exploratory inductive process that begins with empirical evidence of the particular and proceeds to a level of generalizing and the confirmatory deductive process of hypothesis testing of theories (Denzin, 1989). 7. The Burrell & Morgan’s model is matrix schemes that facilitates the classification and comprehension of existing sociological theories based on four major paradigms. The four paradigms are as outlined and reviewed below; The functionalist paradigm is a principal paradigm for organizational study, which presupposes rational human action and believes one, can understand organizational behavior through hypothesis testing. It's pragmatic and profoundly entrenched in sociological positivism, this is relationships are tangible and can be recognized, studied and measured by the use of science (Hugh et al, 1993). The functionalist/objective-regulation paradigm has been slightly prejudiced by Idealist and Marxist reflection too. The Interpretive/subjective-regulation paradigm endeavors to enlighten the stability of behavior from the individual's viewpoint. It has not generated much organizational theory, but it pays attention in realization of the subjectively created world Vis avis the ongoing processes and lays emphasis on the spiritual nature of the world. Kant and other philosophers enacted its base, while these who supplemented on its ideology were Husserl, Schutz, and Weber (Uma, 1992). The Radical Humanist/subjective-radical change paradigm analyses the perception of an individual that seems to be enveloped by the ideological superstructures with which he interrelates, and these impels a cognitive wedge between himself and his true consciousness, which thwarts his accomplishment. It is mainly on the subject of freeing of social checks that limit an individuals potential (Kordig, 1973). Hegel, Kant and Marx are its philosophers. It was carried on into the 20's at the Frankfurt School, and in French existentialism. Most of the Radical Humanist/subjective-radical change paradigm is essentially anti-organization (Scheid-cook, 1988). Radical Structuralist/objective-radical change paradigm and its theorists suppose that radical change is built into the nature of societal structures, and this is, "Contemporary society is characterized by fundamental conflicts which generate radical change through political and economic crises” (Musgrave, 1970). Its basis lies in the hands of philosophers like; Marx, followed by Engle’s, Lenin and Bukharin (Patton, 1988). Burrell & Morgan took the position that paradigms represent incommensurable approaches to the organization studies, which implies that each paradigm should be separately developed and applied (Shultz & Hatch, 1996). Indeed they “were quite specific that a synthesis between paradigms cannot be achieved, that they must remain discrete and develop independently” (Jackson & Carter, 1991). To be precise Burrell & Morgan do not present paradigms as a possible framework for understanding how and why there are different forms of organizational analysis. Further more not even why there is a tendency for these forms to be attracted towards any of their four paradigms. Instead, they postulate that paradigms assume, and have a restriction of analysis within the confines of four. Burrell and Morgan's 2x2 matrix is a tool for underscoring the diversity of forms of organizational analysis, and for revealing the relativity of the particular set of assumptions that underpin functionalism. Their emphasis is that, analysis is, and must remain, confined within the structure of their matrix: To be located in a particular paradigm is to view the world in a particular way. The four paradigms thus define four views of the social world based upon different meta- theoretical assumptions with regard to the nature of science and society (Burrell and Morgan 1979) This casts doubt to whether the model can advance knowledge if applied in business and management research. If Burrell and Morgan had paid closer attention to Kuhn's interest in the dynamics of scientific knowledge development, their unqualified assumption of exclusivity and the associated advocacy of paradigmatic closure would have been abandoned or, at least, substantially revised. Kuhn's analysis suggests that theory development involves a process of struggle in which an accumulation of anomalies in existing theories stimulates the plausibility and development of alternative theorizing (Field, 1973). 8. Deductive research approach works from the more generalizations (external logic) and theories to the more specific (internal logic), this is informally a “top-down” approach, which is then followed by conclusions from the available facts (Constance, 1989). Mean while an induction research approach works in the other way round, this is, from the more specific (internal logic) to the broader generalizations (external logic) and theories, this is informally a “bottom-up” approach (Stadler et al, 2004). What Gill & Johnson (2002) speculate is that, induction approach develops out of logical empirical research which is more liable to fit the data and as a result is more likely to be valuable, credible and accessible. They further illustrate that supporters of induction discard the causal model, for the reason that there are elementary distinctions among the area under discussion of the social sciences and the theme of natural sciences. Deduction carries on from an already known perspective of attributes that is from a recognizable imperative (Decoo, 1996), for instance, all burglars who steal wine from a pub are drunkards, and hence searches for this general perspective in the data, for instance the unknown burglar is a drunkard. Indeed the logical form is deduction, since the case is lowered to an already acknowledged decree. This illustrates to us that deductions, enlighten us with nothing new, but on the other hand if the rule put forward for concern is legitimate, then the consequence of application of the rule is also legitimate (Hussey & Hussey, 1997). Gill and Johnson (2002) argue that, what is essential is the logic of deduction and the maneuvering course of action, and how this absorbs the subsequent analysis of the hypothesis by its argument with the empirical world. Induction carries from the assets of an illustration to generalizations, this is it conveys a single case into a rule, for instance considering in the burglaries previously recorded, wine was stolen from various pubs, and for the record Mr. Andrew committed these burglaries, a conclusion is drawn immediately that Mr. Andrew usually robs wine whenever he breaks into the pubs. This logical form is purely induction. It can also be established that induction just like deduction, enlightens us with nothing new, but the only difference is that it doesn’t convey truth, this is the results are simply apparent (Fischer, 1979). Induction approach revolves around two correlated point of views: the clarification of societal phenomena glued in observation and experience; and analysis of a number of the philosophical hypothesis held by positivism (Evered & Louis, 1981). Even though induction and deduction are conventionally well thought-out approach, deduction moves from theory to data, and the highly structured approach is widespread in natural sciences (Bara & Bucciareilli, 2000). It tries to clarify casual relationships between variables through assortment of models of adequate magnitude to generalize conclusions (Hammerly, 1975). On the other hand induction moves from data to theory, and it’s common in social sciences. Its elastic configuration enables changes and allows appreciation of significances we human beings connect to affairs (Zikmund, 1991). The induction approach has a lesser amount of anxiety by way of necessitate generalizing. My position on this issue is that induction and deduction are never compatible, just in the same way that positivism and constructionism are placed differently. Reference list: Arrow, K. 1962, “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”, in The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors, ed. R. R. Nelson, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bara, B.G. & Bucciarelli, M. 2000, “Deduction and induction: Reasoning through mental models”, Mind & Society, Vol. 1, pp. 95 – 107. Barker, J. 1992, Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. Harper Collins publishers, New York Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R.D. 2006, “What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?” Academy of Management Journal Vol. 49, pp. 9–15. Bedeian, A.G. 2003, “The manuscript review process: The proper role of authors, referees, and editors”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 12: pp. 331–338. Beyer, J.M., Chanove, R.G. & Fox, W.B., 1992, ‘The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to Academy of Management Journal”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No.5, pp. 1219-1261. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. Heinemann, London, pp. 1-37. Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. W. 1959, “Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, No. 54, pp. 297–312. Clarke, M., Thomas, S. & Clegg, S., eds. 2000, Changing Paradigms, Harper Collins publishers, London Coccia, M. & Rolfo, S. 2002, “Technology Transfer analysis in the Italian national research council”, The international journal of technological innovation and entrepreneurship, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 291-299. Constance, S. 1989, "A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 395-403. Creswell, J. 2003, Research design: A qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cummings, L.L. & Frost, P. J. Eds. 1995, Publishing in the organizational sciences, 2nd edition. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. Dannreuther, J. & Peterson, M. 2006, Security Strategy and Transatlantic Relations. Routledge. Chapter 5 – 7. Dasgupta P. & David P. A. 1994, “Toward a New Economics of Science”, Research Policy, Decoo, W. 1996 “The Induction-Deduction Opposition: Ambiguities and Complexities of the Didactic Reality”, International Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 95-118 Deetz, S.A. 1995a, “The social production of knowledge and the commercial artifact”, In Publishing in the organizational sciences Eds. Cummings, L.L. & Frost, P.J., 2nd edition. Deetz, S.A. 1995b, “The social production of knowledge and the commercial artifact”, in Publishing in the organizational sciences Eds. Cummings, L.L. & Frost, P.J., 2nd edition. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. Denzin, N. K. 1989, The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, 3rd Ed. Dorgan, M. 2001, "Paradigms in the Social Sciences," in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 16. Dr. Gill, J. & Dr. Johnson, P. 2002, Research Methods for Managers, 3rd edition. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA. Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. 1998, Making strategy: The journey of strategic management, Evered, R. & Louis, M R. 1981, “Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: Inquiry from the inside and inquiry from the outside”, Academy of Management, Vol. 6, No 3, pp. 385-395. Field, H. 1973, "Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference". Journal of Philosophy Fischer, R. A. 1979,"The inductive-deductive controversy revisited", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 98-105. Freedman P. 1960, The principles of scientific research, Pergamon Press, New York. Frost, P.J. & Taylor, R.N. 1995, Partisan perspective: A multiple-level interpretation of the manuscript review process in social sciences journals. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. Gallis, J. 2008, “The end of Atlanticism or a new era of burden sharing?” The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit at Bucharest, Gardner, H. 2004, Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. 2000, Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application, 6th ed. Merrill Publishers, Columbus, OH. Geisler E. 2000, The Metrics of Science and Technology, Quorum Books, Westport Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. 1994, The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications Ltd: London. Gilliland, S. & Cortina, J., 1980, “Reviewer and editor decision making in the journal review process”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 427-452. Hammerly, H. 1975, "The deduction & induction controversy", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 59, pp.15-18. Hawkins, M. 2006, Global Structures, Local Cultures. Oxford University Press: Melbourne. Hugh, W., Norman, J. & Pippa, C. 1993, “Breaking the paradigm mentality”; Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 681-730. Hull, D. 1988, Science as a Process. Chicago University Press, Chicago Hussey, J. & Hussey, R. 1997, Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Jackson, N. & Carter, P. 1991, “In Defense of Paradigm Incommensurability” Organization Studies, Vol. 12, No.1, pp. 109 - 127. Jacoby, R. 2006, “The Transatlantic Gap”, Cambridge Journals Online, available from: . [18 April 2010]. Jaffe A. B. 1989, “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, Kagan, R. 2000, “Power and Weakness/ Looking for Legitimacy in All the Wrong Places” The Paradigm, September 12th. Kordig, C. R. 1973, “Discussion: Observational Invariance". Philosophy of Science, No. 40, Kuhn, T. 1989, "The Natural and the Human Sciences" in The Interpretative Turn: Philosophy, Science, Culture1991. Kuhn, T. S. 1962, The structure of scientific revolutions, first ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Masterman, M. 1970, "The Nature of a Paradigm," in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 59–89. Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. 2003, “Mixed methods design: An alternative approach”, in Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research Eds. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. Sage Publications Ltd. Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 209-240. Merton R. K. 1968, “The Matthew Effect in Science”, Science, No. 159, January-March, Merton, R.K. 1942, “The Normative Structure of Science”, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations ed. Merton, Robert King 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Mitroff, I. I. 1974, “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists”, American Sociological Review, No.:39, pp. 579-595. Mulkay, M. 1976, "Norms and Ideology in Science", Social Science Information, No.: 15, Musgrave, L, 1970, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine1992, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume I, Available from: . [10 April 2010]. Patton, M. Q. 1988, “Paradigms and pragmatism”, in Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution, Ed. Fetterman, D. M. Praeger Publishers, New York, pp. 116-137. Perlesz, A. & Lindsay, J. 2003, “Methodological triangulation in researching families: making sense of dissonant data”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, No. 6, pp. 25-40. Persaud, R. 2002, “Could a college merger close the transatlantic gap?”, Nature-International Weekly Journal of Science, Vol. 419, No. 763. Pondy, L. & Boje, D.M. 1980, "Bringing Mind Back In: Paradigm Development as a Frontier Problem in Organizational Theory,” in Frontiers in Organization & Management, Ed. Williams Evan. Praeger Publishers: New York, pp. 83-101. Posen, A.S. 2001, World Trade and Transatlantic Relations, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Available from: . [11 April 2010]. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. D. 1989, “Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 255-274. Ritzier, G. 1975, “A multiple paradigm science”, The American sociologist, Vol. 10, No. 3, Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Pérez-Prado, A. 2002, “Mixed methods use in HRD and AE”, in, Academy of Human Resource Development 1999 Conference Proceedings Ed. Kuchinke, K. P., Academy of Human Resource Development, Baton Rouge, LA, Romer P. M. 1994, “The Origins of Endogenous Growth”, Journal of economic perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 1, winter, pp. 3-22. Rynes, S. L. 2005, ‘Taking stock and looking ahead” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 9–15. Sampson, P, Samuel, V. & Sugden, S 1997, ‘The Rise of Postmodernity’: Faith and Modernity, Regnum Books International, Cambria. pg. 29-59. Scheid-Cook, T. L. 1988, “Mitigating Organizational Contradictions: The Role of Mediatory Myths”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 161 - 171. Schultz, M. & Hatch, M. 1996, “Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No.2, Smigel, E.D., & Ross, H.L. 1970, “Factors in the editorial decision”, American Sociologist, No.:5 pp. 19–21 Stadler, F. & Institut Wiener Kreised. 2004, Induction and deduction in the sciences. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg. Starbuck, W. H. 2005, “How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication”, Organization Science, No.:16, pp. 180–200. Staw, B.M. 1995, Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor: Some unexplored issues in publishing organizational research. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Steffenson, R. 2005, Managing EU-US Relations: Actors, Institutions and the New Transatlantic Agenda. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Chapter 4. Stephan P. E. 1996, “The Economics of Science”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34, Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. 2003, Eds., The handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA. Thomas K. S. 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) 2004, Establishing a Barrier-Free Transatlantic Market: Principles and Recommendations, Report to the US-EU Summit in Ireland, Available from: .[14 April 2010]. Uma, S. 1992, Research Methods for Business, 2nd ed. Wiley publishers, New York. Van Buskirk, W. & McGrath, D. 1999, “Organizational Cultures as Holding Environments: A Psychodynamic Look at Organizational Symbolism”, Human Relations, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 805 - 832. Yalow, R., 1996, “Competency testing for reviewers and editors”, in Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control, Ed. Harnad, S., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 60-61. Zikmund, William G. 1991, Business Research Methods, 3rd ed. Dryden Press, Chicago. Ziman, John 2000, Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York Read More