research method in qualitive research管理學(xué)定性研究方法

EvaluatingQualitativeManagementResearch:aContingentCriteriology.WorkshopNumber7ESRCWorkshopsforQualitativeResearchinManagementIdentificationoftrainingneedInappropriateassessmentcriteriaisfrequentlyappliedtoqualitativeresearch.Concernsexistabouthowtoassessqualitativeresearch

Aims

Toillustratehowcompetingphilosophicalperspectivesunderpindifferentwaysofevaluatingmanagementresearchanddifferentresearchagendas;Toillustratethedangersofusingparticularevaluationcriteria,constitutedbyparticularphilosophicalconventions,toassessallmanagementresearch;Todevelopacontingentcriteriologywhereappropriateevaluationcriteriamightbeusedwhichvaryaccordingtothephilosophicalassumptionsinformingtheresearch.ObjectivesBytheendofthesessionyoushouldbeableto:Outlinetheproblemsassociatedwithcriteriologywithregardtocompetingprocessesofresearchevaluation;Explaintheconstitutiveandcontingentrelationshipbetweenphilosophicalassumptionsandthedevelopmentofdifferentevaluationcriteria;

Describethekeyevaluationcriteriarelevanttofourdifferentapproachestomanagementresearch.Historicaldominanceofquantitativemethodologyinanglophonecountries;Neverthelessqualitativemanagementresearchhasalongestablishedpedigree;Qualitativeresearchmanagementresearchcharacterizedby: substantivediversity; competingphilosophicalassumptions.Confusionariseswhenevaluationcriteriaconstitutedbyparticularphilosophicalconventionsareuniversallyappliedtothisheterogeneousfield;

Toavoidmisappropriationthereisaneedforacontingentcriteriology. FourKeyApproachestoManagementResearch:

Knowledgeconstitutingassumptions(1).Positivism

Popper’smodifiedpositivistmethodologyemphasizesobjectivityandunbiaseddatacollectioninordertotesthypothesesagainstanaccessibleindependentsocialrealityinordertoprotectagainst“fancifultheorizinginmanagementresearch”(Donaldson,1996:164).Hence4keyevaluationcriteria:Internalvalidity-whetherwhatareinterpretedasthe“causes”producethe“effects”inagivenpieceofresearch-necessitatescreating,orsimulating,conditionsofclosurewhichallowempiricaltesting;ConstitutingevaluationcriteriainmanagementresearchTestinghypothesesrequirestheoperationalizationofabstractconceptscausallyrelatedbythetheoryintoindicatorsthatmeasurewhattheyaresupposedtomeasure-constructvalidity.Akeyconcernisexternalpopulationvalidity-generalizingfindingstoadefinedpopulationbeyondthoserespondentsparticipatingintheresearch.Needtopreservedistancebetweentheresearcherandtheresearched-reliabilityoffindingsthroughreplication-thisreferstotheconsistencyofresearchfindingsandreferstotheextenttowhichitispossibleforanotherresearcherto(i)replicatetheresearchdesignwithequivalentpopulations;(ii)findthesameresults.Task:Evaluatethedifferentresearchmethodsintermsoftheirrelativestrengthsinregardtothe4criteriabelow:EcologicalValidity

“Doourinstrumentscapturethedailylifeconditions,opinions,values,attitudes,andknowledgebaseofthosewestudyasexpressedintheirnaturalhabitat?”(Cicourel,1982:15)Raisesquestionsaround:theextenttowhichthesocialsettinginwhichdatahasbeencollectedistypicalofinformants’normal“everyday”lives?areresearchfindingsartefactsofthesocialscientist’smethodsofdatacollectionandanalyticaltools?(2)Neo-EmpiricismThroughverstehen,andthecollectionofqualitativedata,aimstoinductivelydevelopthickdescriptionsofthepatternsactorsusetomakesenseoftheirworlds-sometimestoalsogenerategroundedtheory.Butretainspositivistcommitmenttoobjectivityexpressednowasasubject-subjectdualism:“thethird-personpointofview”(Schwandt,1996:62).Thequestionisarethephilosophicaldifferenceswithpositivismseenassignificantwhenitcomestoevaluationsresearch? -ForLecompteandGoetz(1982)no-hencecanuseunreconstructedpositivistcriteria.VS -ForLincolnandGuba(1985)yes-henceemphasizethefollowing.....Internalvaliditywithcredibility(authenticrepresentations);Externalvaliditywithtransferability(extentofapplicability);Reliabilitywithdependability(minimizationofresearcheridiosyncrasies);Objectivitywithconfirmability

(researcherself-criticism).MeanwhileMorse(1994)focusesupontheanalysisofqualitativedata....Comprehension(learningaboutasetting);Synthesizing(identifyingpatternsinthedata);Theorizing(explanationsthatfitthedata);Recontextualizing(abstractingemergenttheorytonewsettingandrelatingittoestablishedknowledge).Hammersley(1989;1990;1992)addstothesecriteriabydevelopinginternalreflexivity-

Researcher'scriticalscrutinizationoftheimpactoftheirfieldrole(s)uponresearchsettingsandfindingssoastoreducesourcesofcontaminationtherebyenhancingecologicalvalidity(i.e.naturalism).e.g.. -avoidoverrapportwithmembers; -treatsettingasanthropologicallystrange; -retainbalancebetweeninsiderandoutsider; -retainsocialandintellectualdistancetopreserveanalyticalspace.AsSeale(1999:161)-throughrevealingaspectsofthemselvesandtheresearchprocessasatraceableaudittrail,thequalitativeresearcherpersuadesreadersthatthey“canrelyonthewriter’shardwonobjectivity”therebyestablishingthecredibility,dependabilityandconfirmabilityoffindings.Butacontradictionwithinneo-empiricistinterpretivestanceandtheir“immaculateperception”-repudiationleadstosocialconstructionistapproaches.

(3).CriticalTheoryRejectionoftheoryneutralobservationallanguage;Kantianphilosophicallegacy;Democracyandreflexivityasepistemicstandards-keytoenablingthisisthedevelopmentofacriticalconsciousnesswhere... “...firsttounderstandtheideologicallydistortedsubjectivesituationofsomeindividualorgroup,secondtoexploretheforcesthathavecausedthatsituation,andthirdtoshowthattheseforcescanbeovercomethroughawarenessofthemonthepartoftheoppressedindividualorgroupinquestion”(Dryzek,1995:99).Epistemologicallylegitimateknowledgeariseswhereitistheoutcomeofempowereddemocraticcollectivedialogue.Thisleadstofivekeyevaluationcriteria....e.g.KincheloeandMcLaren(1998)Reflexiveinterrogationbytheresearcheroftheepistemologicalbaggagetheybringwiththem;Throughacriticalethnographyresearchersattempttosensitizethemselvesandparticipantstohowhegemonicregimesoftruthimpactuponthesubjectivitiesofthedisadvantaged;Positivistconceptionofvalidityrejectedinfavourofthecredibilityofsociallyconstructedrealitiestothosewhohavedemocraticallyparticipatedintheirdevelopment;Generalizabilityrejectedinfavourofaccommodation-whereresearchers’usetheirknowledgeofarangeofcomparablecontextstoassesssimilaritiesanddifferences;Catalyticvalidity-extenttowhichresearchchangesthoseitstudiessothattheyunderstandtheworldinnewwaysandusethisknowledgetochangeit-linktopragmatistcriterionofpracticaladequacy.(4).PostmodernismEvaluationacontroversialissuehere-oftenwrittenoffasamodernistanachronism.Postmodernistseclecticaboutwhattheywantwhilstbeingrelativelyclearaboutwhattheyareagainst-e.g.criticaltheory’sessentialism.Neverthelessanythingdoesnotgo!andwecaninferfromsubjectivistepistemologicalandontologicalstancethefollowing...Arelativistposition-nogoodreasonsforpreferringonerepresentationoverothers...Hencemissionistoundermineanyclaimtoepistemologicalauthority,subvertconventionalwaysofthinkingand...Encouragepluralityandindeterminacy-anormativeagendabydefault..Resultsinseveralpossibleevaluationcriteria:Displayandunsettlethediscursiverulesofthegamethroughdeconstructiontorevealthosemeaningswhichhavebeensuppressed,sublimatedorforgottenandtherebydevelop;Atmostdeconstructioncanonlyevokealternativesocialconstructionsofrealitywithinatextwhichcanthemselvesbedeconstructed-hyper-reflexivity;Paralogy-needtodestabilizetheirownnarrativestoavoidtheacontrivedinvisibilityaroundtheauthorialpresencebehindthetextthatprivilegesthetextandencouragesdiscursiveclosure-decentringtheauthor;Theresult-apreference-lesstolerationofthepolyphonicorheteroglossia-wheremulti-vocalauthorsareempoweredtomanipulatesignifierstocreatenewtextualdomainsofintelligibilitywhicharethendestabilizedadinfinitum.Managementresearchembracesadiversearrayofpracticesdrivenbyvaryingknowledgeconstitutingassumptions;Thislegitimizesdistinctiveperspectives,researchagendasandpromulgatesparticularevaluationcriteria;Thereforetryingtoarticulateanallembracing,indisputable,setofregulativestandardstopolicemanagementresearchisbothaforlornhopeandanunfairpractice;Hencetheneedforacontingentcriteriologythatsensitizesmanagementresearcherstotheparticularqualityissuesthattheirownandothers’researchshouldaddress.Butthereareinstitutionalbarrierstoacontingentcriteriology-henceneedtobeconcernedabouthowandwhyinparticularsocialcontextscertainresearchpracticesaredeemedvaluablewhileothersarediscountedasvaluelessaberrations.ConclusionsFutherreading:Bochner,A.P.(2000)CriteriaAgainstOurselves,QualitativeInquiry,6(2):266-272.Mitchell,T.R.(1985)AnEvaluationoftheValidityofCorrelationResearchConductedinOrganizations,AcademyofManagementReview,2:192-205.Scandura,T.A.andWilliams,E.A.(2000)“ResearchMethodologyinManagement:CurrentPractices,Trends,andImplicationsforFutureResearch”,AcademyofManagementJournal43(6)1248-1264.Cronbach,L.J.&Meehl,P.E.(1955)Constructvalidityinpsychologicaltests.PsychologicalBulletin,52,281-302..Schwab,D.P.(1980)ConstructvalidityinOrganizationalBehaviour,ResearchinOrganizations,2:3-43.Campbell,D.T.&Fiske,D.W.(1959)Converentanddiscriminantvalidationbythemultitrait-multimethodindex.PsychologicalBulletin,56,81-105.Campbell,,D.T.(1957)FactorsRelevanttotheValidityofExperimentsinSocialSettings,,PsychologicalBulletin,54:297-312.Bracht,G.H.andGlass,G.U.(1968)TheExternalValidityofExperiments,AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,5:537-74.Knapp,W.S.(1981)Onthevalidityofaccountsabouteverydaylife,SociologicalReview,29(3):543-526.Cicourel,A.V.(1982)Interviews,Surveys,andtheProblemofEcologicalValidity,AmericanSociologist,17:11-20.Lecompte,M.andGoetz,J.(1982)“ProblemsofreliabilityandValidityinEthnographicResearch”,ReviewofEducationalResearch52(1):31-60.Morse,J.M.(1994)Emergingfromthedata:thecognitiveprocessofanalysisinqualitativeenquiry,inJ.M.MorseCriticalIssuesinQualitativeResearchMethods,