Article A9.1 Doctoral Summer School 2011: Managing Doctoral Research Atul Kumar, Julian Tobias, Poornima Mahapatra Doctoral Scholars, Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, INDIA atulschauhan[at]gmail.com, tobiasjulian[at]sify.com, poornima.mahapatra[at]gmail.com 1. DSS 2011: A Summer Event on Doctoral Education A Doctoral Summer School (DSS 2011) on “Managing Doctoral Research” was held at Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar (XIMB), India, during June 6-11, 2011. The objective of the School was to enhance participants’ understanding of the doctoral research process in management and related fields. The event attracted a total of 34 participants—one of the participants came from Iran and the rest came from different parts of India. Most of the participants were early-stage doctoral scholars; others were academics and other professionals intending to start their doctoral studies. The programme was organised around five themes: (a) Foundations of Inquiry, (b) Selection of Research Issues, (c) Forms and Methods of Inquiry, (d) Reporting on Inquiry, (e) Social and Institutional Environment of Research. This report presents an overview of the discussions held under each theme. Resource persons who led these discussions came from various institutions: Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIM Calcutta), Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IIT Kanpur), Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), SAGE Publications, Xavier Institute of Management Bhubaneswar (XIMB), and XLRI School of Business and Human Resources. 2. Foundations of Inquiry The sessions under this theme referred to various characteristics of scientific inquiry. Science is characterised in terms of its purpose, structure, and methods, with the following features: (a) it refers to systematised bodies of knowledge built around distinct subject matter, (b) it uses logical and analytical methods to investigate a wide range of phenomena, (c) it is often able to explain and predict, and (d) it is subject to testing and falsification (i.e., allowing for the possibility of establishing the falsity of a claim/proposition). This approach is distinct from pseudoscience which claims ultimate knowledge and that there is nothing more to learn. Pseudoscience is based on dogma or belief; the followers do not subject their beliefs to falsification. The idea of falsification is related to construction of theories. Theory represents a coherent representation, description, and explanation of observed or experienced phenomena. The utility of a theory improves if it can be related to practical experiences. The process of developing a theory involves not just producing it, but testing, applying, and revising it as well. Three different types of theory are: (a) grand theory (i.e., an overarching theory, seeking to explain a very broad range of phenomena), (b) middle-range theory (i.e., a theory that seeks to explain a specific set of phenomena), and (c) micro-theory (or micro-range theory, i.e., that seeks to represent a very specific context). Different approaches to inquiry can follow different routes to theory development. A deductive approach typically involves the following sequence: theory > hypothesis > pattern > observation. An inductive approach typically involves the reverse sequence: observation > pattern > hypothesis > theory. New theories that are proposed or validated based on these approaches can be seen as only the tip of a pyramidal structure. Theories which represent extensions of existing theories that constitute the middle layer of the pyramid, while the base consists of a collection of replication studies. The risk of error, uncertainty about contribution, and value of contribution increase as we go from the bottom of the pyramid to its top. Different stages can be identified in our understanding of science as it has changed throughout the twentieth century. At an early stage, science was considered to be founded upon verifiability (this is related to the doctrine of logical positivism, according to which a statement ought to be verifiable in order to be meaningful). This was later replaced with the idea of falsifiability (i.e., the idea that science progresses through disconfirmation of theories). Another understanding of scientific progress focused on paradigm shift (i.e., the process through which an entire way of thinking about a phenomenon changes through a fundamental shift in the thought style and language of a scientific community). One of the current ideas about science concerns the social production of knowledge, in which the social and economic processes influencing the goals and methods of scientific research are highlighted. It particularly draws attention to the influential role of non-scientific actors (e.g., industries, governments) within the process of knowledge production. 3. Selection of Research Issues Research, which is a systematic effort to generate new knowledge, depends on two important foundations: ontology and epistemology. Ontology refers to our stance on what exists, both the objects or beings that exist and the relationships among them. Epistemology refers to our stance on the nature and limits of human knowledge. Different forms of research can adopt different combinations of ontological and epistemological stances. Three specific forms were discussed: (a) positivist research, (b) interpretivist research, and (c) critical research. Positivist research is based on observations and data. It assumes observations as representations of reality. In interpretivist research, the perceptions/interpretations of the researcher are important. Critical research is concerned with analysing the prevailing power structures in society that colour both observations and interpretations. Critical research is designed with a view to empowering those who are disadvantaged by the prevailing power structures. Often a doctoral research process does not expose one to all these different forms of research. One primarily learns the basic discipline associated with doing research. That discipline maybe compared to the BODMAS rule of arithmetic (i.e., the rule referring to the order of arithmetic operations: B: Brackets, O: Order, D: Division, M: Multiplication, A: Addition, S:Subtraction). The doctoral researcher needs to keep track of the tasks associated with the doctoral research process and follow them in order to manage the process effectively. Some useful tips are: maintaining a journal/log book of ideas and activities, discussing issues with peers and supervisors, reading research literature, and developing the habit of writing. There can be different ways to identify a research topic. It may involve a practical problem, which can be identified in consultation with practitioners. Sometimes a research topic can be identified by reading through the available literature, thereby arriving at a research gap that can be addressed. Of course, sometimes a topic maybe built around the researcher’s own ideas. 4. Forms and Methods of Inquiry A research process is likely to depend upon the type of research questions being addressed. Questions of What, When, Who, and How much relate more to the quantitative research process. On the other hand, questions of Why and How relate more to the qualitative research process. Depending upon the questions, qualitative social research may take different forms, such as narrative research, phenomenological study, grounded theory, or ethnography. Narrative research provides a chronological account of an event, action, or experience, or a series of them. Phenomenological study focuses on the psychological experiences of a phenomenon. Grounded theory aims at generation of theory from participants who experienced the process, event, or action. Ethnography refers to the study of culture-sharing groups. Theories tend to shape our perspectives of the world. Two important aspects of theory are abstraction and generalisation. Abstraction is a process by which detailed information about a phenomenon is reduced to some aspects considered as the core or essential. Generalisation is the process of linking a set of phenomena through some common features. Both abstraction and generalisation involve judgements as to what is core in a phenomenon or what is common across phenomena. Ideologies are sometimes involved in this judgement. The researcher’s inherent interests and ideas shape his/her ideology and location. Location refers to where the researcher places oneself in the research context and the results he/she expects from research. These tend to align with the specific tradition of inquiry a researcher follows (such as positivism, interpretivism, constructivism, postmodernism, etc.). It is not always easy to argue that the researcher’s explanations/theories are superior to those of the non-researcher. Ultimately, the question of superiority depends on meticulous records, consistent logic, and internal coherence, aspects considered vital in the discourse of research (Tilly, 2004). An important aspect of the discourse of research is measurement. Scientific research recognises four levels of measurement: (a) nominal (which categorises the data or responses), (b) ordinal (which orders the data or responses according to their relative magnitude), (c) interval (which fixes the differences within the data set according to a measurement scale), and (d) ratio (which allows for a wider range of comparisons within the data set). Associated with measurement are the issues of reliability and validity. Reliability relates to measurement consistency and refers to the degree to which an instrument provides the same measure under repeated usage with the same subjects in similar conditions. Two ways of estimating reliability are: (a) test/retest (i.e., usage of repeated measurements) and (b) internal consistency (i.e., association among measurement items that relate to the same concept). Validity assesses appropriateness of the measure. The concept has far-reaching significance, for example, even if a measure is appropriate in one context it may not be appropriate in another. Accordingly, many different notions of validity are used in research: (a) construct validity, (b) internal validity, (c) external validity, and (d) conclusion validity. Construct validity checks if there is a relationship between concepts being operationalised for measurement and the actual operationalisations. Internal validity checks if the observed effects/outcomes are indeed related to the causes one is studying. External validity checks if the conclusions based on the measurement can be generalised across different settings. Finally, conclusion validity assesses the extent to which the conclusions reached are justified. Sometimes research involves a series of measurements collected over time. This is called time-series data. Time-series data are part of a sequence of observations taken at equidistant intervals in time, where it is assumed that adjacent observations are related to each other (as these are supposed to be related to some underlying phenomenon). For example, if GDP today is unusually high, GDP tomorrow is also likely to be unusually high. Various statistical models exist to exploit this dependence. If the underlying phenomenon is stable, then the time series ought to reflect that stability. Such a stable time series should be ideal for predicting future measurements. This stability property is studied through the concept of stationarity. Most economic (and other) time series do not satisfy stationarity conditions. Mathematical manipulations can sometimes help in deriving a stationary series from a non-stationary one. 5. Reporting on Inquiry Participants were presented with five versions of a single research article. The first version was the first draft of the article and the subsequent revisions reflected the refinements based on the peer review comments received. This illustrated issues of writing style as well as demonstrated the vital role of peer reviewers. It is not uncommon for researchers to get trapped in their own ideas. Sometimes they are not aware of the difficulties a reader may face in following their arguments. That is why peer review is so important. Peer reviewers are like friends; usually they have nothing against the author. Peer reviewers are volunteers who do not get paid; they offer a service. To the open-minded researcher, peer review can be a learning process resulting in a more developed piece of writing. Researchers need to be aware of the scourge of plagiarism. One should avoid adapting large chunks of text from another source verbatim, mentioning citations only in a few paragraphs: this misleads the reader into believing that only those specific paragraphs are from the credited source, while the rest is the author’s own writing. This is not acceptable in research reports. Research writing involves several conventions. Typically one is expected to adhere to a specific style manual, which specifies rules for quotations, spellings (e.g., favor/favour), serial comma, italics, diacriticals, citations, numbering, in-text reference for tables, and so forth. Research journals often indicate the style manual they expect an author to follow (e.g., Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association). 6. Social and Institutional Environment of Research Applied fields, such as management, aim to influence behaviour and action. High-quality action does not always follow high-quality knowledge. Borrowing from the work of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, we can say that behaviour and action depend on the meanings people make through the practical use of language. Therefore the practical circumstances of communication and interaction (i.e., culture, history, institutions, and practices) ought to be of critical concern to researchers in applied fields. Moreover, research is often a community activity; social and transdisciplinary research are even more so. Participation, conversation, debate, and critique are essential for the development of research activity. Research settings in India differ from those in western countries, in respect of budgetary cutbacks (leading to outdated research infrastructure), growing presence of the private sector in higher education, massive postgraduate enrolments, and global mobility of students and academic staff. This relates to the concern regarding the quality of doctoral programmes in India. There are too many doctoral programmes producing too many PhDs (see, e.g., National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 2001). Institutions of higher learning seem to be under pressure from numerous rating agencies, which sometimes drive them towards initiatives not necessarily consistent with their vision and mission. There remains a lot to be done to promote interdisciplinary communication and research (e.g., engagement between business schools and social science faculties). Reference National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration. (2001). Quality of doctoral and other equivalent research in universities [Document No. D-11214]. New Delhi, India: Author. Tilly, C. (2004). Reasons why. Sociological Theory, 22(3), 445-454.
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
