Reflective Research on Social Impacts of E-Commerce - Essay Example

1 Introduction 2 2 Reflective Research: A Conceptual and Theoretical Overview 3 3 Reflective Research within the Qualitative Approach 6 3 Unstructured Reflection 6 3.2 Structured Reflection 7 3.3 Qualitative Research and Reflection Processes 8 4 Practical Application 10 4.1 Observation and Participation 11 4.2 Interviews 13 4.4. Qualitative Data Analysis 14 5 Conclusion 15 6.0 Bibliography 16 1 Introduction Until recently, there has always been a strict and very clear demarcation between the researcher and the practitioner, between research and reflection (Green and Levin, 1998). The researcher was defined, and in many research and learning models still is, as the objective collector, interpreter, organiser and disseminator of knowledge. The rules of research insisted upon the researcher’s maintaining distance from the subject of enquiry so to avoid the data or the results and findings being tainted with subjectivity. Similarly, while the researcher was responsible for the production of knowledge and/or theory, he/she was not responsible for its implementation or its practice (Green and Levin, 1998). Within the matrix of traditional research models, therefore, the researcher was neither reflector nor practitioner. The traditional research model constrained itself and limited its potentialities for the articulation of consistently practical, applicable and relevant knowledge. Delimiting the role of the researcher to collector, organiser, interpreter and disseminator of knowledge prevents researchers from reflective engagement with the topic of enquiry and, thus, detracts from the final output itself – the research. This, at least, ids the position held by a significant number of researchers (Reason, 1994; Park, 1999; Green and Levin, 1998; Reason and Bradbury, 2001; Bray et al., 2002). Having outlined the primary difference between traditional and non-traditional/reflective research, this present research shall now explore the strategies by, and through, which the researcher may integrate reflective approaches into qualitative enquiry projects. More specifically stated, following a definition and discussion of reflective research and its variant forms and strategies, the research will look into its potential contributions to a qualitative study on the social impacts of e-commerce. 2 Reflective Research: A Conceptual and Theoretical Overview Reflective research represents both a reconsideration of the principles upon which traditional research is founded and, a break with it. The traditional research model, as briefly noted in the introductory paragraphs, demands separation between research and practice, between the researcher and the practitioner. Indeed, within the matrix of the research activity and the subsequent utilisation of its output, the roles of either are clearly separate. As Bray et al. (2002) note, the researcher’s role is confined to the production of findings and the practitioner’s role is the application of, and reflection upon, those findings. The concept of the researcher-practitioner/reflective researcher/reflective practitioner emerged from the evidently and fundamentally flawed premise upon which the traditional research model, as outlined and defined in the preceding, is founded. Reason and Bradbury (2001), as have other researchers (Park, 1999; Bray et al., 2002) contend the separation to be founded upon an inherently flawed understanding of the purpose of research for two reasons. In the first place, within the traditional research model, it is the researcher who identifies the problem to be studied, designs the study’s methodological approach, collects the data he/she deems appropriate, interprets the data objectively and then publishes his/her findings. In the second place, within the parameters of traditional research models, the research subject, not to mention the practitioners within the field under investigation, are treated as providers, or sources of information which the researcher is seeking. The research subject, despite his/her experiential and professional knowledge within the problem area, is not asked to provide information which he/she believes important or suggest possible research directions. Instead, the research subject’s knowledge is disregarded to the extent that it is the researcher who is identified as the expert on the topic, even though he/she may have no professional or experiential knowledge of it, and the research subject as one of the many data sources utilised by the researcher (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). The consequence of such a separation is that, ultimately, research fails to be practical, is not practitioner-friendly and, more often than not, does not reach practitioners in the field (Bray et al., 2002). The reflective-practitioner research model emerged as a response to the persistent failure of traditional research models to address practitioners as anything other than research subjects. Its ultimate aim is the production of research which is practitioner-friendly, relevant to the field and, importantly, both practical and applicable. Indeed, in order to better understand the conceptual and theoretical implications of reflective research, Smith’s (1999) definition of traditional research is particularly informative. As explained, traditional research is “imperial” research, predicated on the assumption that the researcher, the expert, understands the subject of enquiry better than do the practitioners, the “indigenous” populations. Within the contextual parameters of the stated, the researcher looks towards and upon the research problem, its field and practitioners through “imperial eyes,” (Smith, 1999; p. 42). Traditional research is the “West:” “It (1) allows us to characterise and classify societies into categories, (2) condense complex images of other societies through a system of representation, (3) provide a standard model of comparison, and (4) provide criteria of evaluation against which other societies can be ranked” (Smith, 1999: pp. 42-43). Non-traditional research, reflective research as carried out by the reflective practitioner is, thus, “decolonizing” and “emancipatory” research (Smith, 1999; p. 42). It is research which is conducted by practitioners; research which emerges from within the field of enquiry itself and, even as it is informed by all of the data sources which the traditional researcher exploits, is further benefited by the researcher-practitioner’s own professional and experiential knowledge. It is relevant research performed, to borrow from Smith’s (1999: p. 42) by the indigenous population. Proceeding from the above stated, it is possible to, thus, define reflective research as a non-traditional approach to the research task, wherein the research activity is undertaken by those formerly regarded and identified as research subjects, not as researchers. It is a research methodology whose primary impetus is the rendering of practitioner-friendly, relevant research 3 Reflective Research within the Qualitative Approach Defining and describing reflective research practices as a research approach which embraces the practitioner and is fundamentally founded upon an appreciation of the value of both experiential and professional knowledge and learning may be, as Bray et al. (2002) note, accurate. It, hardly, however, touches upon the complexity of the approach nor does it clarify the different types of reflection and how they may be integrated into the research activity. A deeper and more thorough understanding of the contributory value of the defined approach to both researchers and practitioners is, thus, dependant upon a clarification of its variant types and an explanation of how each figures into the research activity. 3.1 Unstructured Reflection Critics of practitioner-based reflective research insist that it is a detrimental approach to research because it is, by definition, an unstructured approach. In other words, reflective research is, at least according to critics, unstructured. To a degree this is true. Experience and experiential learning are, by their vary nature, unstructured. Lack of structure, however, does not negate the fact that experience is a form of learning or that experiential learning lends to constructive learning outcomes. It is, however fallacious to assume that reflective research is unstructured. Indeed, as McIntyre (2003) insists, irrespective of the opinion of traditional researchers and the belief that one of the types of reflective research is unstructured reflection, there is no such thing. In other words, unstructured reflection may be a thought process which individual researchers engage in while `brainstorming’ but it does not constitute a research methodology, approach, type or strategy (McIntyre, 2003). 3.2 Structured Reflection Structured Reflection, according to reflective practitioners and researchers, is the only type of reflective research which exists (Reason, 1994, Reason and Bradbury, 2001; Bray et al., 2002; McIntyre, 2003). It entails the design of a reflective process and the articulation of the areas or research stages wherein reflection will have a contributory role. Within the context of structured reflective research, there are several reflective approaches, or types. These are: Group discussion’ Discussion with other experts and practitioners Diaries and journal logs, both structured and unstructured Reading Each of these structured reflection types plays a fundamental role in the production of qualitative research reports and studies. In other words, alternately identified as reflective research types and processes, the above list-items are, ultimately, the componential or constituent elements of reflective research. 3.3 Qualitative Research and Reflection Processes If quantitative research is able to withstand the elimination of research reflection from the research activity and data analysis processes, which some researchers doubt that it can, the qualitative research cannot. As Berg (2006) contains, by the very nature of its research approach and strategy, on the one hand, and its data collection and analysis methods, on the other, qualitative research is reflective. Its purpose is the exploration of the `why’ of a phenomenon and in integral to the successful exploration of the stated is researcher, practitioner and subject reflection. More often than not, its data sources include both observation and interviewing and its subject of enquiry tends to be social in nature. As he explains this, Berg (2006) questions the possibility of the researcher’s remaining distant and objective and, indeed, winders how, if at all possible, the researcher not reflect upon the topic/subject of investigation. In other words, qualitative research calls for reflection and should the former not be utilised, the value of both the research and its findings will suffer. Qualitative research may be opinion-based research, as McIntyre (2003) writes but that does not negate its validity nor does it imply that researchers impose their opinions on the study and proceed to present them as factual findings. Indeed, the application, or implementation of the processes of reflective qualitative research ensures that the results are not tainted. Reflective qualitative research does not lead to the production of tainted research findings because the reflective process effectively ensures against the possibility. As Bray et al. (2002) note, the reflective process is basically comprised of three levels of activity. Within the context of the first level, the researcher-practitioner looks towards himself/herself, asking and answering questions pertaining to what he/she has learnt during the research process, further exploring what the data findings taught him/her. The researcher-practitioner, however, embarks upon this reflective process level fully cognizant of his/her own values, worldview and opinions on the topic, as gained and shaped through both experiential and professional learning. With this understanding f his/her own self, the reflective researcher is able to determine how his/her own understandings may taint the results of the research and thus, take caution against doing so. The implication here is hat even as e/she brings his own learning into the process, the researcher is open-minded enough to allow the data and the findings t speak for themselves (Bray et al., 2002). This process is known as the mirror insofar as it entails the researcher to hold up a mirror into his or her own self. The second level of reflection or process is, according to Berg et al. (2002) known as the microscope, entails the critical examination of the entire research. The reflective researcher/reflective practitioner needs to ask him/herself such questions as what happened throughout the research process and how the data uncovered differed from the knowledge the researcher possessed prior to the study. It involves the very critical analysis of all stages of the research and a reflective consideration of the process itself. The third level of reflection, referred to by Berg et al. (2002) as the binoculars, looks towards solutions. The researcher investigates and analyses, not just the research data but the research process itself, in order to determine that which the experience has taught regarding the problem which was studied, the underlying issues which affect it and, in consideration of all that which has been uncovered, what may be done to improve future research into the phenomenon and potential solutions to the problem (Berg, 2002). Within the matrix of all three levels of the qualitative reflective research, the reflective practitioner, if and when possible, should not limit him/herself to individual reflection (as required in all stages) but should embrace group reflection. The research subjects should be involved in the research as experts as co-reflectors and the research should be discussed, its variant stages and their outcomes analysed and the strategies for changing/improving the situation/phenomenon under investigation should be explored, from both the experiential and the professional perspectives Reason, 1994; Park, 1999; Reason and Bradbury, 2001). In other words, the research/study should be reflected upon by its stakeholders; stakeholders should engage with the research and not simply be regarded as research subjects. 4 Practical Application Reflective qualitative research and its variant processes, as defined and discussed in the preceding sections, ultimately emerge as a high complex undertaking. Indeed, complexities are such the one finds oneself questioning their practical implications and the strategies through which reflective research can be integrated into the qualitative research activity. In order to illustrate this, it is necessary to illustrate the practical applicability of reflective research vis-à-vis the social impact of e-commerce. Within the context of the aforementioned research area/problem/phenomenon, both primary and secondary data are required. Hence, three data collection methods will be used. Apart from the desk-based data collection method traditionally associated with secondary data collection, primary data will be collected through the utilisation of the data collection methodologies associated with field research. In primary research, data is collected specifically for the study at hand, which in this case is the socio-cultural impact of e-commerce. It can be obtained either by the investigator observing the subject or phenomenon being studied or communicating directly or indirectly with the subject. In this research both observation and direct communication techniques will be utilized. 4.1 Observation and Participation The selected field of observation is the internet itself, and the focus of observation shall be on three e-bay auction sellers. The researcher will create a buyer account n e-bay for logging in and participation purposes, with the plan being to spend one hour per day observing the state of these three auctions, up until their conclusion. The researcher shall select auction sites where the auctions are just commencing and whose closure date is set for a period of two weeks. The reason for the aforementioned is that, in order to be able to accurately compare and contrast buyer-seller and buyer-buyer interactions in these three sites, it is important that the researcher observe them from the start to the finish, just as it is imperative to select auctions of equal duration. Following auction site selection and proceeding on the basis of the directions provided by McIntyre (2003), the researcher shall note down all observations in a field diary. Field diary notes will focus on the characteristics of the buyers (gender, age and nationality, as provided in buyer profiles), their commentaries and their bids. Day to day developments shall be noted and particular attention will be paid to those who withdraw from the auction and those who stay on until its conclusion. Whether anything other than the price factor affects the decision to withdraw or stay shall be investigated. The field notes shall be objective, in the sense that the researcher will note down developments as they occur and without commentary. Nevertheless, and again following up on McIntyre’s (2003) guidelines, the researcher shall add personal observations on the margins. Doing so will incite the researcher towards reflection upon the issue in relation to experiential and professional/academic knowledge, in addition to which, it will aid in the researcher’s later consideration/reflection upon the variant research stages. In addition to acting as an objective observer/ethnographer, the researcher shall also take on the role of a participant observer. As Elliot (2005) explains, participation allows the researcher an experiential insight into the phenomenon under observation and, thus, maximises his/her understanding of the dynamics inherent within it. In order to collect data through participation, the researcher shall open an e-Bay auction storefront. By interacting with buyers as a seller, the research’s objective understanding of the social impact of e-commerce will be fortified by an experiential understanding. Once again, a field diary will be used in order to record day by day participatory observations. 4.2 Interviews In addition to observation and participation, primary data shall also be collected through in-depth semi-structured questionnaires. The rationale behind choosing in-depth interviews was clear. Firstly, and as pointed out by Merriam (1998), in-depth interviews allow the researcher to crosscheck the survey results and to explore the social realities behind the identified trends (Merriam, 1998). Secondly, in-depth interviews allow the researcher to gain a deeper insight into the phenomenon he/she is studying. Lastly, and as Denzin and Lincoln (2000) emphasise, in-depth interviews lead to the generation of insightful stories, rather than statistical information and permit a better understanding of organisational complexity (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). The researcher has followed the recommendations of Saunders et al. (2000), who state that, interviewers should adopt a range of different interviewing styles, so as to maximise interview effectiveness and not restrict themselves to following the interview framework rigidly. Where an interview exposes issues of interest relevant to the assessment of project management capability, the interviewer should be free to pursue such lines and, as a result, not all questions in the pro-forma interview framework necessarily require being covered in all interviews. Proceeding from the above-stated, the research will conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with the three e-bay buyers whose sites were observed and with 3 of the e-customers. The interviews will be carried out either through email or a chat programme, such as MSN, Yahoo or Skype, depending on the interviewee’s preferences. 4.4. Qualitative Data Analysis With the exception of the interviews which shall be conducted via email, all shall be recorded, pending the permission of the interviewees. As pertains to the recordings, following on the advice offered by miles and Huberman (1994) data analysis will proceed with the researcher’s transcribing of the interviews. Even though the transcribing process will be extremely time-consuming, it will be an invaluable activity. By personally transcribing the interviews, the researcher will be able to develop a high degree of familiarity with the interview material, recollect some of the issues and comments that interviewees had made but which had been forgotten, and detect underlying meanings which had been missed during the interviews themselves. In addition to that, the personal transcription of the interviews will allow the researcher to sharpen personal awareness of the issues and, importantly, to reflect upon the research data and findings through the pursuit of all three reflective processes, including group reflection. The implication here is that the data analysis stage will proceed in accordance with reflective research practices outlined earlier, following through on all three process, as a strategy for arriving at new, reflective and practitioner-friendly knowledge through both individual and group reflection. 5 Conclusion As the research has argued, systematic and organised reflect, both group and individual, upon the research topic/problem/phenomenon has enormous contributory value. Reflective research practice may be a quasi-revolt against traditional research methods insofar as they centralise the researcher/practitioner, rather than decentralise and decontextualise him/her and embrace respondents as participants and stakeholders, rather than treat them as research subjects but, none of this implies that the research findings or results are so tainted with subjectivity that they are ultimately rendered worthless. Indeed, it is possible to claim that the reflective processes outlined ensure the validity of the data, in addition to which, they endow it with greater insights. 6.0 Bibliography Berg, B.L. (2006) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London: Allyn and Bacon. Bray, J.N. et al. (2002) Collaborative Inquiry in Practice : Action, Reflection and Making Meaning. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P. (2005) Business Research Methods. London: McGraw-Hill. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications. Green, D.J. and Levin, M. (1998) An Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. McIntyre, L. (2003) Need to Know: Social Science Research Methods. London: McGraw-Hill. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Park, P. (1999) `People, knowledge, and change in participatory research.’ Management Learning, 30(2), 141-157. Reason, P. (1994) `Three approaches to participative inquiry.’ In N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001) Handbook of Action Research: participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Smith, L.T. Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People. London: Zed Books. Read More