Presentation of Prof. Andrew Van de Ven - iacmr

Qualitative Methods for Creative ProblemFormulation and Theory BuildingIACMR Research PanelAOM Boston, August 5, 2012Andrew H. Van de VenUniversity of MinnesotaFor slides: http://umn.edu/~avandeveIACMR中 国 管 理 研 究 国 际 学 会 International Association for Chinese Management ResearchToward ActionableKnowledge追 求 诸 于 行 动 的 知 识Anne Tsui CallFor Shift inResearch Focus研 究 关 注 点 的 转 移paper-based基 于 文 献theory-testing理 论 验 证Publications文 章 发 表Rigor严 谨Method方 法Phenomenonbased基 于 现 象UnderstandingAnd theory building理 解 构 建Impact影 响 力RelevanceAnd Rigor切 题Philosophy科 学 哲 学www.iacmr.org1

Suggestions for Developing ActionableKnowledge for Theory & Practice1. Practice engaged scholarshiphi2. Ground the subject/topic in reality3. Compare plausible alternative models4. Build strong arguments for claims5. Outline of paper Introductory Paragraphs8/24/20121. Practice Engaged ScholarshipClaim: We can increase the likelihood of advancingknowledge for science and practice by involvingpractitioners and other stakeholders in four steps ofa study:1. Ground problem/question in reality up close &from afar.2. Develop alternative theories to address thequestion.3. Collect evidence to compare models oftheories.4. Communicate & apply findings to address theproblem/question.8/24/20122

1. Practice Engaged ScholarshipStudy Context: Research problem, purpose, perspectiveResearch DesignDevelop variance or processmodel to study theoryEngage methods experts & peopleproviding access & informationCriterion – Truth (Verisimilitude)ModelTheory BuildingCreate, elaborate & justify a theoryby abduction, deduction & inductionEngage knowledge experts inrelevant disciplines & functionsCriterion - Validity8/24/2012SolutionProblem SolvingCommunicate, interpret & negotiatefindings with intended audience.Engage intended audienceto interpret meanings & usesCriterion - ImpactIterate& FitRealityTheoryProblem FormulationSituate, ground, diagnose & inferthe problem up close and from afarEngage those who experience& know the problemCriterion - RelevanceVan de Ven, Engaged Scholarship, Oxford .2007Book Chapters1. Engaged Scholarship in aProfessional School2. Philosophy of Science3. Problem Formulation4. Theory Building5. Process and Variance Models6. Designing g Variance Studies7. Designing Process Studies8. Communicating & Using ResearchKnowledge9. Practicing Engaged Scholarship8/24/20123

2. Ground Your Topic in Reality1. What is your research problem and question?- Address who? what? where? when? why? & how? theproblem exists:a. up close -- in particular with example, anecdoteor experienceb. from afar -- in general with data on prevalence& context of problem2. What is your conjecture or hunch for answering thisresearch question? Is your answer any better than the status quo or acompeting plausible alternative answer?8/24/2012Abductive Process of Creative Inference1. Surprised by an anomaly, problem or puzzle2. Analyze/verify the anomaly3. My anomaly is gone if . . . . . . . .• a creative germ• a hunch, conjecture,• a half-baked idea4. Refine the conjecture and build the theory Go beyond the information given8/24/20124

Edmondson’s ResearchTrianglePhenomenonDataTheories, ModelsEdmondson, A.C. 2009. “Crossing Boundaries to Investigate Problems in the Field: An Approach to Useful Research,”In E. Lawler & S. Mohrman (eds). Doing Research that is Useful for Theory and Practice – 25 Years Later, Berrett-Kohler98/24/20123. Consider Plausible Alternative ModelsStatistical Generalization – Making inferences to population based on sample dataas done in sampling units in survey research (level 1)Analytical Generalization – Making inferences to a theory or rival theory (level 2)Like experiments, case studies should be usedto generalize to plausible alternative theories.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage., p.39.5

Building Theory from Case StudyStepGetting StartedSelecting CasesInstrumentsEntering fieldAnalyzing dataEnfolding literatureActivitySituate problem/phenomenon: perspective, focus, level, scopeDefine research question; start with journalist’s questionsUse theoretical/analytical, not statistical population samplingTriangulate; use multiple data collection methodsOverlap data collection and analysis to sharpen concepts-- If foggy at first, they will defog with field workWithin-case for up-close particulars; Cross-case for patternsCompare similar and conflicting literatureShapinghypothesesReaching ClosureIterate above three steps; search for “why?” and “how?”Use abductive logic to develop alternative conjecturesTheoretical saturation on research questionGo beyond the information given (Bruner)Adapted from Kathleen Eisenhardt, Building Theories from Case Study Research, AMR, 14, 4 (1989), p. 533.Eisenhardt & Graebner, Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges, AMJ, 50 (2007): 25-324. Build Strong Arguments for your ClaimsBackground– the problem, question, context of the claimClaim-Proposition-HypothesisReasons- Major premise- Logic underlying claim- GroundsEvidence-minor premise- data backing reason-warrantsQualifiers- when claim holds ods- assumptions- boundary conditions- contingenciesReservationsLimitations - Grounds for Rebuttal- Logical refutations: validity- Empirical refutations: truth- Cogency of argument: persuasivenessStephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 20038/24/20126

Shape your argument with tree diagramSource: John Ramage & John Bean, Writing Arguments, Third Edition, Boston, MA: Allyn-Bacon, 1995:73.5. Introductory Paragraphs of Your Paper1. Ground The issue up close - examplepe2. The issue from afar – its pervasiveness &context3. The research question examined here4. My answer – proposition/theory5. Argument – My answer is better thanalternative status quo answer because…6. The next sections of paper proceed asfollows….8/24/20127

Your thoughts please!1. What is your researchproblem & question.-- Give example.2. What is your answer?-- Better than status quo?3. How design study?4. How communicate andimplement your findings?5. Knowledge for whom? Forwhat?8/24/20128