research method in qualitive research管理学定性研究方法ntb.pptx

《research method in qualitive research管理学定性研究方法ntb.pptx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《research method in qualitive research管理学定性研究方法ntb.pptx（25页珍藏版）》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Evaluating Qualitative Management Research:a Contingent Criteriology.Workshop Number 7ESRC Workshops for QualitativeResearch in ManagementIdentification of training neednInappropriate assessment criteria is frequently applied to qualitative research.nConcerns exist about how to assess qualitative re

2、search AimsnTo illustrate how competing philosophical perspectives underpin different ways of evaluating management research and different research agendas;nTo illustrate the dangers of using particular evaluation criteria,constituted by particular philosophical conventions,to assess all management

3、research;nTo develop a contingent criteriology where appropriate evaluation criteria might be used which vary according to the philosophical assumptions informing the research.ObjectivesBy the end of the session you should be able to:nOutline the problems associated with criteriology with regard to

4、competing processes of research evaluation;nExplain the constitutive and contingent relationship between philosophical assumptions and the development of different evaluation criteria;nDescribe the key evaluation criteria relevant to four different approaches to management research.nHistorical domin

5、ance of quantitative methodology in anglophone countries;nNevertheless qualitative management research has a long established pedigree;nQualitative research management research characterized by:substantive diversity;competing philosophical assumptions.nConfusion arises when evaluation criteria const

6、ituted by particular philosophical conventions are universally applied to this heterogeneous field;nTo avoid misappropriation there is a need for a contingent criteriology.Four Key Approaches to Management Research:Knowledge constituting assumptions(1).PositivismPoppers modified positivist methodolo

7、gy emphasizes objectivity and unbiased data collection in order to test hypotheses against an accessible independent social reality in order to protect against“fanciful theorizing in management research”(Donaldson,1996:164).Hence 4 key evaluation criteria:nInternal validity-whether what are interpre

8、ted as the“causes”produce the“effects”in a given piece of research -necessitates creating,or simulating,conditions of closure which allow empirical testing;Constituting evaluation criteria in management researchnTesting hypotheses requires the operationalization of abstract concepts causally related

9、 by the theory into indicators that measure what they are supposed to measure-construct validity.nA key concern is external population validity-generalizing findings to a defined population beyond those respondents participating in the research.nNeed to preserve distance between the researcher and t

10、he researched-reliability of findings through replication-this refers to the consistency of research findings and refers to the extent to which it is possible for another researcher to(i)replicate the research design with equivalent populations;(ii)find the same results.Task:Evaluate the different r

11、esearch methods in terms of their relative strengths in regard to the 4 criteria below:Ecological Validity“Do our instruments capture the daily life conditions,opinions,values,attitudes,and knowledge base of those we study as expressed in their natural habitat?”(Cicourel,1982:15)Raises questions aro

12、und:nthe extent to which the social setting in which data has been collected is typical of informants normal“everyday”lives?nare research findings artefacts of the social scientists methods of data collection and analytical tools?(2)Neo-EmpiricismnThrough verstehen,and the collection of qualitative

13、data,aims to inductively develop thick descriptions of the patterns actors use to make sense of their worlds-sometimes to also generate grounded theory.nBut retains positivist commitment to objectivity expressed now as a subject-subject dualism:“the third-person point of view”(Schwandt,1996:62).nThe

14、 question is are the philosophical differences with positivism seen as significant when it comes to evaluations research?-For Lecompte and Goetz(1982)no-hence can use unreconstructed positivist criteria.VS-For Lincoln and Guba(1985)yes -hence emphasize the following.nInternal validity with credibili

15、ty(authentic representations);nExternal validity with transferability(extent of applicability);nReliability with dependability(minimization of researcher idiosyncrasies);nObjectivity with confirmability(researcher self-criticism).nMeanwhile Morse(1994)focuses upon the analysis of qualitative data.nC

16、omprehension(learning about a setting);nSynthesizing(identifying patterns in the data);nTheorizing(explanations that fit the data);nRecontextualizing(abstracting emergent theory to new setting and relating it to established knowledge).nHammersley(1989;1990;1992)adds to these criteria by developing i

17、nternal reflexivity-nResearchers critical scrutinization of the impact of their field role(s)upon research settings and findings so as to reduce sources of contamination thereby enhancing ecological validity(i.e.naturalism).e.g.-avoid over rapport with members;-treat setting as anthropologically str

18、ange;-retain balance between insider and outsider;-retain social and intellectual distance to preserve analytical space.nAs Seale(1999:161)-through revealing aspects of themselves and the research process as a traceable audit trail,the qualitative researcher persuades readers that they“can rely on t

19、he writers hard won objectivity”thereby establishing the credibility,dependability and confirmability of findings.nBut a contradiction within neo-empiricist interpretive stance and their“immaculate perception”-repudiation leads to social constructionist approaches.(3).Critical TheorynRejection of th

20、eory neutral observational language;nKantian philosophical legacy;nDemocracy and reflexivity as epistemic standards-key to enabling this is the development of a critical consciousness where.“.first to understand the ideologically distorted subjective situation of some individual or group,second to e

21、xplore the forces that have caused that situation,and third to show that these forces can be overcome through awareness of them on the part of the oppressed individual or group in question”(Dryzek,1995:99).nEpistemologically legitimate knowledge arises where it is the outcome of empowered democratic

22、 collective dialogue.nThis leads to five key evaluation criteria.e.g.Kincheloe and McLaren(1998)nReflexive interrogation by the researcher of the epistemological baggage they bring with them;nThrough a critical ethnography researchers attempt to sensitize themselves and participants to how hegemonic

23、 regimes of truth impact upon the subjectivities of the disadvantaged;nPositivist conception of validity rejected in favour of the credibility of socially constructed realities to those who have democratically participated in their development;nGeneralizability rejected in favour of accommodation-wh

24、ere researchers use their knowledge of a range of comparable contexts to assess similarities and differences;nCatalytic validity-extent to which research changes those it studies so that they understand the world in new ways and use this knowledge to change it-link to pragmatist criterion of practic

25、al adequacy.(4).PostmodernismnEvaluation a controversial issue here-often written off as a modernist anachronism.nPostmodernists eclectic about what they want whilst being relatively clear about what they are against-e.g.critical theorys essentialism.nNevertheless anything does not go!and we can inf

26、er from subjectivist epistemological and ontological stance the following.nA relativist position-no good reasons for preferring one representation over others.nHence mission is to undermine any claim to epistemological authority,subvert conventional ways of thinking and.nEncourage plurality and inde

27、terminacy-a normative agenda by default.Results in several possible evaluation criteria:nDisplay and unsettle the discursive rules of the game through deconstruction to reveal those meanings which have been suppressed,sublimated or forgotten and thereby develop;nAt most deconstruction can only evoke

28、 alternative social constructions of reality within a text which can themselves be deconstructed-hyper-reflexivity;nParalogy-need to destabilize their own narratives to avoid the a contrived invisibility around the authorial presence behind the text that privileges the text and encourages discursive

29、 closure-decentring the author;nThe result-a preference-less toleration of the polyphonic or heteroglossia-where multi-vocal authors are empowered to manipulate signifiers to create new textual domains of intelligibility which are then destabilized ad infinitum.nManagement research embraces a divers

30、e array of practices driven by varying knowledge constituting assumptions;nThis legitimizes distinctive perspectives,research agendas and promulgates particular evaluation criteria;nTherefore trying to articulate an all embracing,indisputable,set of regulative standards to police management research

31、 is both a forlorn hope and an unfair practice;nHence the need for a contingent criteriology that sensitizes management researchers to the particular quality issues that their own and others research should address.nBut there are institutional barriers to a contingent criteriology -hence need to be

32、concerned about how and why in particular social contexts certain research practices are deemed valuable while others are discounted as valueless aberrations.ConclusionsFuther reading:nBochner,A.P.(2000)Criteria Against Ourselves,Qualitative Inquiry,6(2):266-272.nMitchell,T.R.(1985)An Evaluation of

33、the Validity of Correlation Research Conducted in Organizations,Academy of Management Review,2:192-205.nScandura,T.A.and Williams,E.A.(2000)“Research Methodology in Management:Current Practices,Trends,and Implications for Future Research”,Academy of Management Journal 43(6)1248-1264.nCronbach,L.J.&M

34、eehl,P.E.(1955)Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin,52,281-302.nSchwab,D.P.(1980)Construct validity in Organizational Behaviour,Research in Organizations,2:3-43.nCampbell,D.T.&Fiske,D.W.(1959)Converent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod index.Psycho

35、logical Bulletin,56,81-105.nCampbell,D.T.(1957)Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings,Psychological Bulletin,54:297-312.nBracht,G.H.and Glass,G.U.(1968)The External Validity of Experiments,American Educational Research Journal,5:537-74.nKnapp,W.S.(1981)On the validity of

36、accounts about everyday life,Sociological Review,29(3):543-526.nCicourel,A.V.(1982)Interviews,Surveys,and the Problem of Ecological Validity,American Sociologist,17:11-20.nLecompte,M.and Goetz,J.(1982)“Problems of reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research”,Review of Educational Research 52(1

37、):31-60.nMorse,J.M.(1994)Emerging from the data:the cognitive process of analysis in qualitative enquiry,in J.M.Morse Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods,London:Sage.nSeale,C.(1999)Quality in Qualitative Research,Qualitative Inquiry,5(4):465-478.nKinchloe,J.L.and McLaren,P.L.(1998)“Rethi

38、nking critical theory and qualitative research”in Denzin,N.and Lincoln,Y.(eds)Handbook of Qualitative Research,London:SagenTsoukas,H.(1989)The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations,Academy of Management Review,14(4):551-561.nMabry,L.(2002)Postmodern Evaluation-or not?American Journal of Eval

39、uation,23(2):141-57.nSchwandt,T.A.(1996)“Farewell to Criteriology”,Qualitative Inquiry 2(1):58-72.nLocke,K.and Golden-Biddle,K.(1997)Constructing Opportunities for Contribution:Structuring Intertextual Coherence and“Problematizing”in Organization Studies,Academy of Management Journal,40(5):1023-1062.nBedeian,A.G.(2004)Peer Review and the Social Cobstruction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline,Academy of Management Learning and Education,3(2):198-216.