Search results

The purpose of this paper is to make a small contribution to reflections on general methodology, not specific methods, in social science.

Systemic methodology.

First, schematic typology of six conceptual models. Second, typology for determining levels of abstraction for different models and degrees of generalisation. Third, typology for generalisation on the basis of a case study. Fourth, strategy for developing conceptual models.

Research falls into two main categories: conceptual generalisation and empirical generalisation. Conceptual generalisation is an investigation whereby the researcher uses other researchers’ empirical findings in conjunction with his or her own process of conceptualisation in order to generalise and identify a pattern. This contrasts with empirical generalisation, where the researcher investigates a phenomenon or problem that is apparent in the empirical data, and only thereafter generalises in the light of his or her own findings.

A low level of understanding of conceptual generalisation among masters and PhD students. With this paper the authors try to change this perception among students.

Developing a systemic methodology in order for students and university teachers to understand conceptual generalisations.

Generalization in accounting research is always suspect as the social context and institutions of accounting change over time and space. However, exactly for this reason, there are a number of different ways to reach pragmatic and somewhat generalizable results. No research programme or approach has an absolute upper hand in understanding the true dynamics of economic development. The genuine puzzle of inductive reasoning creates a rhetorical element for all attempts to generalize in accounting research. The main rhetorics used in accounting studies are statistical, contextual, and constructive generalization. To put it in broad terms, statistical generalization rhetoric relies on formal arguments brought from a mathematical theory, contextual generalization rhetoric is based on understanding of the historical and institutional context, and constructive generalization relies on the diffusion of innovation. Combining the often silenced opportunities of contextual or constructive generalization rhetorics in case studies, and noticing the typically omitted problems of statistical generalization rhetoric, argues that these research approaches are not as far from each other as current methodological discussion would suggest. On the contrary, argues that in terms of generalization, both case and statistical studies face the same obstacles of justifying real induction, and both approaches, if conducted properly, have a chance of producing results that are generalizable to some extent.

Action design research (ADR) has become widely accepted as a prominent research method within information systems when managing design-oriented research projects. One purpose of the ADR method is to provide methodological guidance for the building of IT artefacts. However, several scholars have reported a lack of guidance of method support at the micro level. This article aims to complement the macro level of the ADR method by integrating prescriptive method support at the micro level.

A qualitative approach including direct content analysis. An empirical ADR project was analysed in order to identify method support that could be integrated into the ADR method.

Method support at the micro level was identified for all the stages of the ADR method. The method support consists of procedural support, guiding concepts, and various techniques for the documentation of project tasks stated in the ADR method.

The contribution to theory consists of aspects concerning the integration of macro and micro levels: relationships between normative and prescriptive support, continuous focus shifts, and method completeness.

The contribution to practice consists of explicit suggestions for method support that could be integrated into the ADR method.

This study extends previously provided knowledge by offering empirical evidence concerning theoretical constructions consisting of explicit relationships between ADR tasks and integrated method support, and elaboration on the integration of macro and micro levels.

The purpose of this paper is the conceptual expansion of the science-theoretical foundations of information science, i.e. to develop new thought schemes for information science.

The design of the paper is as follows: first, the paper will discuss the foundation of the systemic paradigm (SP). Then the authors will consider the history of information science related to the philosophy of science. In the remaining part of the paper, the authors will investigate information science and its relation to the philosophy of science, focusing on SP.

In conclusion, the authors will summarise the seven criteria for the application of SP in information science.

Paradigms in information science have rarely reflected upon the use of a SP in information science.

The practical use of the seven criteria in information science Criterion 1: make your premises, suppositions, prerequisites and motives explicit. Criterion 2: make your moral/ethical results and consequences explicit. Criterion 3: research should be evaluated in relation to the transcendence of knowledge. Criterion 4: emphasise methodical pluralism, i.e. empirical generalisations and conceptual generalisations. Criterion 5: emphasise proximity and in-depth studies. Criterion 6: look for patterns and patterns which combine. Criterion 7: look for the power behind the patterns.

The opinion is that scientists to a great extent should seek knowledge on the basis of a belief, a specific way of thinking, and by means of specific methods. To make the authors belief explicit makes the way of thinking visible. What the authors achieve, and possibly the only thing the authors can achieve, is to reaffirm the conscious belief. This does not make reality more real, but it could put the authors in a better position to see through the authors way of thinking when faced with scientific problems. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

The seven criteria entail that Kuhn’s argumentative chain (where he tries to find out why theory A is preferred to theory B on a rational pretext) does not concur with SP. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

The Coase theorem is associated with Stigler because Stigler coined the term. The object of this paper is to show that Stigler’s Coase theorem is Stiglerian for deeper – namely, methodological – reasons. We argue that, convinced as he was by the importance of Coase’s message, Stigler also believed that this message – such as presented in “The Federal Communications Commission” (1959) or “The Problem of Social Cost” (1962) – was not scientific. Hence, he had to transform it into a theorem to give it a scientific dimension. This is what we try to show by presenting Stigler’s methodology and by confronting it to the methodology used in Coase’s articles.

The purpose of this paper is to improve the theoretical understanding of the communicative processes in social systems.

Conceptual generalisation.

Aspects of a communications theory with three assumptions and ten propositions.

The method used and the findings.

The purpose of this paper is to present a general scientific methodology on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy.

Systemic thinking and conceptual generalisation.

A general scientific methodology based on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy of social science.

Using quantitative methods to conduct a research to test Asplunds motivation theory and North’s action theory.

How to conduct a research based on a systemic perspective.

An advantage of linking a systemic perspective to organisational psychology studies is that it may result in new ways of looking at old problems and bring new perspectives to the methods used. One explanation may be the fact that while researchers within various organisational psychology subject fields are largely specialists, the systemic perspective is oriented towards general scientific methodology.

The authors have not seen anybody who have tried to apply systemic thinking as a general methodology for research.

Presents the scientific methodology from the enlarged cybernetical perspective that recognizes the anisotropy of time, the probabilistic character of natural laws, and the entry that the incomplete determinism in Nature opens to the occurrence of innovation, growth, organization, teleology communication, control, contest and freedom. The new tier to the methodological edifice that cybernetics provides stands on the earlier tiers, which go back to the Ionians (c. 500 BC). However, the new insights reveal flaws in the earlier tiers, and their removal strengthens the entire edifice. The new concepts of teleological activity and contest allow the clear demarcation of the military sciences as those whose subject matter is teleological activity involving contest. The paramount question “what ought to be done”, outside the empirical realm, is embraced by the scientific methodology. It also embraces the cognitive sciences that ask how the human mind is able to discover, and how the sequence of discoveries might converge to a true description of reality.

“In so far as stray thoughts, giants, and brownies, lies and errors are really existing, though only in the imaginations of men, to that extent they are true. All errors and lies are true errors and true lies, hence are not so far removed from truth that one should belong to heaven and the other to eternal damnation.” (Dietzgen: The Positive Outcome of Philosophy).