Methodological Issues in Management Research

Advances, Challenges and the Way Ahead

Rabi N. Subudhi, Sumita Mishra, Rabi N. Subudhi, Sumita Mishra

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781789739756
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: R&D
• Index: Business

Using contemporary examples of business and management research, predominantly within the context of India, this book offers numerous tools and techniques which can be applied to a diverse range of needs in social science research.
With contributions from subject-experts in the field of research methodology and teachers of research methodology courses in leading business schools and universities of India, the book covers the essentials of management research. Covering both qualitative and quantitative research, topics discussed include:

• literature reviews
• research designs
• qualitative and quantitative data analysis
• grounded theory research
• questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews
• hypothesis testing
• case study research
• emerging trends in research and some advanced analysis.

Specially selected Research Cases provide examples of some typical management research topics, outlining the detailed stages of their respective research processes and the latest data analysis techniques using SPSS, AMOS and STRATA.
This practical element emphasises the variety of research methods and when/how to use them, making this book a useful resource for researchers from various academic disciplines and professional backgrounds.

Chapter 1

The Methodological Domain in Management Research

Sumita Mishra and Rabi N. Subudhi

Abstract

The introductory paper begins with the issue about the relevance of research in management. It emphasizes the need for scholars to adopt methodologies best suited to the research problem of their choice. This paper contains sections on the nature of management research, dominant research paradigms, the methodological domain, quantitative versus qualitative research, and triangulation in using multiple methodologies. The paper provides a background to the purpose of the book and summarizes in brief the purpose of each the subsequent papers.

Keywords: Management research; research paradigms; methodological domain; quantitative versus qualitative research; triangulation; multiple methodologies

Introduction

What makes management research interesting? What is it about scholarly research that grabs the attention of a potential audience? How can research in management induce relevance and yet be rigorous? These and many more questions were raised and attempted answers to in a thought-provoking paper by Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland (2006) published in Academy of Management Journal. At the onset Bartunek et al. (2006) maintain that though research in management requires to generate interest in a targeted audience; the importance of a research question and the validity of conclusions drawn from the foundations of high quality and relevant research. The relevance of academic research has been an issue of long standing among academicians (Brannick & Coghlan, 2006; Panda & Gupta, 2014; Van de Ven, 2007). In a more recent paper, Panda and Gupta (2014) debating on the relevance of academic research in management in the Indian scenario mention the limited applicability of management research to management practice. Among the many reasons cited by them for this unfortunate state of research, a pertinent reason mentioned from an earlier study by Shapiro, Kirkman, and Courtney (2007) is the “lost in translation gap” and the “lost before translation gap.” The “lost in translation gap” refers to the failure of managerially relevant research reaching a target audience while “the lost before translation gap” points out to the failure of management researchers in undertaking relevant research problems in management practice (Panda & Gupta, 2014).

To promote academic research with relevance Panda and Gupta (2014) take up the cause for methodologies. Academic socialization of scholars (inclusive of doctoral scholars) is predilected toward great rigor in data analysis using appropriate software and techniques. But an insularity in such analysis without proper address to knowledge bases existing on a problem tends to produce elegant, scientific models though losing relevance for practice in management research. Thus, Panda and Gupta (2014) aptly urge scholars to leverage methodologies suitable for research problems while helping scholars address the interdependence between theory and practice. The impact of management studies depends upon the appropriateness and rigor of the methods chosen (Scandura & Williams, 2000). While scholars do address the rigor of methods, the appropriateness of their selection is a concern as methodological choices are often subjected to research proclivities of scholars. Rudolph and Peluchette (1992) emphatically stated that academic scholars needed to curb their leanings toward quantitative methods for doing research. Finally, a focus on indigenous theories of management relevant to local contexts can go a long way in injecting relevance in research.

The present book represents an attempt of the editors to address issues interspersed in the preceding paragraphs. The methodological landscape in management research is an ever-changing domain with differing paradigms, methods, data collection tools, and analytical techniques. As doctoral scholars embark on an interesting yet challenging journey of research, their concerns with research problems and a suitable methodological framework for doing research assume paramount importance. The book presents a constellation of papers from Indian scholars located across the country with an overriding aim of addressing key methodological issues beginning with a basic understanding to the purpose and process of research. The editors hope that the papers with their varied foci will provide a suitable platform to scholars in understanding, appreciating, and finally selecting appropriate methods for study.

The Nature of Management Research

Throughout history, researchers have attempted to explore and explain reality. The foundations on which researchers work with their reality are their ontological and epistemological positions. These positions are critical to one’s own research as they shape the conceptualization of research problems, the framing of research questions, the choice of research methodologies, and the final interpretations of results. These positions are an outgrowth of the deeply entrenched beliefs of a researcher about the world. Ontological positions are concerned with what constitutes reality and researchers accordingly need to take positions on self-perceptions of how things are and how they really work (Gupta & Awasthy, 2015). Epistemology represents the theory of knowledge (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2008). This position reflects the researcher’s position on views of what can be known and how can it be known (Gupta & Awasthy, 2015). Since reality can be understood through several perspectives in social sciences, researchers often take differing ontological and epistemological positions.

Discussions proliferating on the nature of management research focused on its fragmented and varied ontological status (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Whitley (1984) in an early influential paper published in the Journal of Management Studies described management as a practically oriented social science. In a lucid description on the body of knowledge called as management, Whitley (1984) stated that the preferred way for formulating and solving problems were subject to disputes and often assessed through different standards. Refining Whitley’s (1984) views, later prominent researchers like Pettigrew (1997) emphasized the divide between stakeholder groups in management research and the need for studies to address policy and practice.

The inherent diversity prevalent in the discipline, the diffusion of standards in assessing the formulation, and relevance of problems have paved the path for heterogeneity in ontological and epistemological positions of various stakeholders. These divergences juxtaposed with the practical orientation of management as a discipline have increased the distance between theory and practice (Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001). To bridge these differences, researchers (i.e., Panda & Gupta, 2014; Tranfield et al., 2003) over a decade and half stressed on the need for studies to deliver the twin demand of high academic quality and yet maintaining sensitivity to practitioners and context-specific perspectives. The pivotal body dedicated to the study and critique of management research – Academy of Management and its various country-specific papers have continually created forums to explore research both theoretically sound, methodologically rigorous, and yet relevant to the practitioner community (Tranfield & Starkey, 1998; Tranfield et al., 2003).

Dominant Research Paradigms

Brannick and Coghlan (2007) stated that management research represented a hotbed of theories that struggled for supremacy to impose meanings on shared versions of organizational life. These theories were also the product of varied research paradigms. Thomas Kuhn’s epic book titled, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, originally published in 1962 popularized the concept of paradigms which summarized the belief of researchers about their efforts of creating knowledge (Morgan, 2007). Though definitions of paradigms abound in available literature, a comprehensive understanding was provided by Morgan (2007). He provided four alternative applications of the “paradigm concept” in social sciences namely (1) paradigms as worldviews or ways of experiencing and thinking about the world, (2) paradigms as epistemological stances – a narrower stance that contains worldviews in the domain of knowledge and influences how research questions are asked and answered, (3) paradigms as shared beliefs among members of a certain area and finally, and (4) paradigms as models of research-that serves as exemplars of research conducted within a domain. In the early part of the twenty-first century the extant research methods and methodology-related literature provided cognizance to three major research paradigms in social sciences: (1) Positivism, (2) Hermeneutics, and (3) Action research (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007).

(1)Positivist tradition: The positivist tradition views research as an objective process, the researcher as detached charged with the purpose of describing, explaining, and testing social phenomena. Theory in the positivist tradition comprises of three major elements: (1) concepts (terms that represent features of complex phenomena such as job satisfaction, employment, etc.), (2) propositions or statements linking these concepts, and (3) measurement tools/techniques (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). Concepts lie at the heart of research and the approach is concerned with reliability, validity, and accurate measures prior to contribution of theory to extant or new knowledge. Though theories are important, the positivist tradition accords more importance to the process of testing theories (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). This tradition while laying the foundations of quantitative methods for research and inquiry dominated management research for years where academic institutes in courses on “Social Research Methods” primarily focused on statistical techniques of measurement such correlations, regressions, and the structural equation modeling (Panda & Gupta, 2014).

(2)Hermeneutic tradition: The hermeneutic tradition with an emphasis on interpreting shared meanings and experiences of members of a community is largely subjective in its construction of reality. The researcher is an engaged participant, as opposed to that of the positivist tradition and his/her prolonged engagement with participants is at the heart of creating good quality research. The researcher enters the field without any a priori assumptions or hypotheses about reality. Though a complete eradication of one’s world views, beliefs, and assumptions are difficult, the hermeneutic tradition discourages researchers from premature theorizing and urges them to build relevant theories from empirical experience (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). Researchers generally “go native” and are liaisons between the community they interpret and the audience they report to. The tradition has laid down the foundations of qualitative research methods in management research calling for engaging participants and providing endogenous analysis of a problem or phenomena unde...