Search results

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the methodological logic of coproductive research approaches like action research, collaborative research, interactive research and participatory research in a way that can clarify its effectiveness and scientific qualities in high quality knowledge production, and show the way that it can be integrated with institutionalized textbook science.

The paper clarifies the character of coproduction as research methodology concept, the logic of coproductive research approaches, and its characteristics compared to quantitative and qualitative methodology. A model for characterizing research approaches from leading textbook social science is developed to specify the character of coproductive research approaches and support integration in mainstream research methodology discussions.

The paper develops a research methodology framework for coproductive logic and approaches to research, to support the integration of this type of approaches in mainstream research methodology.

The developed model of coproductive research approaches is not empirically described. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test and further develop the model in relation to cases and designs of research projects.

The paper is helpful for guiding the design of coproductive research in practice, i.e., in research project development or in research methodology education.

The development of coproductive research approaches supports making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions. It also is enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes, thus the democratization of research and knowledge production.

The paper contributes to integration of the family of coproductive approaches in mainstream research methodology discussion through the development and elaboration of a framework for organizing the description and development of coproductive research approaches. The aim is that the framework is valuable for both academics, practitioners and students in designing coproductive research projects.

Criticizes the view that ethical judgements are completely separate from facts and theories in the social sciences. On the contrary, it argues that no project can be initiated nor any facts collected without some goal in mind and no important statement can be made in the social sciences without involving an ethical view. An ethical framework is one part of every social scientist′s paradigm (using the word in the sense of Thomas Kuhn) and we always work within that paradigm using those ethical values ‐even when social scientists claim to be purely “objective” with no ethical values in their work. Argues that Marx had an ethical view based not on any supernatural entity or imperative, but on the needs and desires of all of humanity. Marxist social science, like Institutionalist social science, is based on the view that every social science project must involve both factual research and an ethical framework.

To contribute to improved research practices by addressing three key realities in management research, all being largely disregarded by research: complexity, context and persona (the human and social aspects of researcher behaviour).

Based on observations from real world cases and inductive analysis the article proceeds as a scientific discourse and advocacy for qualitative methodology combined with network theory, particularly current developments in the natural sciences.

A qualitative approach to research is required, allowing researchers to deal with complexity, context and persona and their multitude of factors, relationships and fuzzy phenomena; conventional statistical methods fail in all these aspects. Holistic, systemic thinking as manifested in case study research and modern network theory offers a superior mindset and techniques for merging modern physics and mathematics with qualitative approaches. Social and human properties, including tacit knowledge, common sense, subjectivity and what drives a researcher need to be made part of research.

Research in management disciplines, neither basic research nor applied research can rely on mainstream quantitative techniques. These are two shallow as they can harbour too few variables, do not put studied phenomena in their proper context, and sweep persona under the carpet.

The article is on qualitative methodology and the opportunities it offers to address issues not handled well by mainstream research in business. Modern natural sciences are introduced; especially network theory, suggesting a merger between the quantitative and the qualitative and between modern natural sciences and business research. In this way the reality of complexity, context and persona can be added to the research agenda.

Describes how there are unsolved problems within the philosophy of the social sciences, which cannot provide a coherent account of a style of science which is based on either explanation or understanding. No easy combination of elements from the empiricist and hermeneutic approaches is possible because of radically different epistemologies. Shows how, against this background of philosophical insecurity, action science seems to offer new possibilities by incorporating a form of practice of research which is aimed at understanding meaning, while at the same time retaining enough of the characteristics of the ideal of scientific reliability (hard data, explicit inference, public testing) to free it from the danger of uncritically adopting the internal viewpoint of participants. It is free from commitment to empiricist epistemological principles, so that it can combine elements of the explanatory and interpretative poles in a coherent way. Argues that it is a valuable contribution which can advance the discussion within the philosophy of the social sciences.

The purpose of this paper is to advocate that case study research needs to renew itself and employ its full potential as an innovative theory‐generating methodology in management disciplines; and to propose that a viable strategy for such renewal is to exploit the power of case study research and network theory as supplementary methodologies.

The paper is a reflective and synthesising comparative study.

If one steps down from the tip of the iceberg and inspects the underwater properties of case study research and network theory a common core is found: the recognition of complexity. The methodologies supplement each other, case study research primarily using verbal language and qualitative data, while network theory uses a nodes‐and‐links language that opens up for verbal, graphic and mathematical treatment. Case study research is primarily associated with qualitative research in social sciences and network theory with quantitative research in both social and natural sciences. By abolishing the unfortunate categories of qualitative/quantitative and natural sciences/social sciences that have been set against each other, and letting them join forces for a common goal – to learn about life – people open up for methodological creativity.

By comparing case study research with network theory on a fundamental level, the paper offers a novel perspective on research. It is a contribution to an overriding desire to improve the understanding of management and society.

The paper addresses the puzzling phenomenon of the ubiquity of economic forecasting, of which property market forecasting is but one instance, on the one hand, and the unreliability of such forecasts, on the other hand. The paper explains why property market forecasts fail, in a non-trivial sense, and why this problem is irredeemable.

This was a conceptual paper and was based on original thought and literature review.

This paper attributes the failure of property market forecasts to the inappropriate application of the methodology of the natural sciences to the social sciences by mainstream economics. Specifically, the problem is located in the positivist philosophy and the assumptions of methodological individualism and rational choice theory underlying neoclassical economic theory.

The paper makes an original contribution by clearly showing why and how the methodology of the natural sciences, especially physics, has been applied to economics and property market analysis, why this is inappropriate and why it leads to failure. The paper introduces a debate that has hitherto been mostly confined to philosophy and mainstream economics into the property or real estate discipline and in a manner that is accessible to a non-philosophy audience.

The purpose of this paper is to provide forum for critical discourses in the area of retroduction thinking in the re-orientation of social sciences research at the Bank of Sierra Leone. It is acknowledged that economic research at the bank is more oriented towards the orthodox approach (Keynesian, etc.), while that of the un-orthodox (heterodox) view is being blighted by the need to prove economic theory application without much consideration given to the imperfect market economic conditions faced in the country.

The methodology of the paper is based on critical theoretical literature review of documents and also the assessment of current approach to research practices at the Bank of Sierra Leone.

There is actually a pool of professionals from different backgrounds, whose passion have been coordinated to embrace the idea of integrating variety of triangulation approaches (methodological, theoretical, data, and investigator) in their pursuit of exploring best practices for policy research at the bank. Research is an ontological journey and the process of its epistemological inquiry requires pool of experts, drawn from wide range of backgrounds (mainstream Social Sciences, Mathematical Science, etc.), whose approaches are pertinent in the pursuit of human discovery, and particularly for policy development, as in the case with the Bank of Sierra Leone. This work has highlighted several salient recommended points for future action in the lead towards energizing research at the bank.

The effort to provide this paper is very original, which is based on the author's experience of working in a research focused environment. This paper will be of value to future pursuance of work in promoting triangulation research at the Bank of Sierra Leone. It is hoped that the outcome of this will spearhead mixture of professional engagement of work activities that is geared towards addressing effective policy formulation at the bank in meeting its key objective (maintaining price stability).

New technologies are posing new challenges to social science. Their very novelty also challenges the established methods that social research institutions have used to define their priorities. The UK’s Economic and Social research Council (ESRC) confronted these challenges, in part, by commissioning a futures study. It engaged the Institute for Alternative Futures (IAF) and the Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition (CRIC), to develop quickly a process for informing the choice of social science research priorities related to genomics. Four major reports were developed as background inputs to a scenario workshop process. As well as outlining a set of scenarios for the development of the genomics field, reports covered genomic applications, forecasts for drivers shaping genomics, and how the ESRC’s “thematic priorities” might relate to developments in genomics in the coming years. With this input and using advanced “groupware”, the scenario workshop identified five priority areas focused on how research should be conducted and 11 priority topics for what research is needed.

This article provides an introduction and assessment of the English and Spanish literatures on gender relations in disaster contexts. We analyze regional patterns of differences and similarities in women’s disaster experiences and the differing research questions raised by these patterns in the scholarly and practice‐based literature. The analysis supports the claim that how gender is theorized makes a difference in public policy and practical approaches to disaster risk management. We propose new directions in the field of disaster social science and contribute a current bibliography in the emerging gender and disaster field.

In 2006, the “Rethinking Project Management” network called for a paradigm shift in project research, and proposed five research directions. The directions inspired research and marked a milestone in the development of the field. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the past decade and to rejuvenate these research directions.

The authors propose the umbrella term: “project studies” to denote the research related to projects and temporary organizing. Project studies is conceived not only as a body of research, but also as a social process embedded in research communities, and contemporary Zeitgeist. Based on Sandberg’s interpretative approach to the fit between work and works (in this case research-researcher) and Habermas’ three types of human interests: technical, practical, and emancipatory, the authors develop a conceptual framework circumscribing three types of research in project studies.

The conceptual framework is used to craft future research directions, in the lines proposed by Winter et al. (2006b).

The authors conclude by proposing for a sixth theme on the practice of theorizing, and call for engaged, ambidextrous scholars, who’s “job” goes beyond the writing of articles and research applications, and includes shaping discourses of project research, nurturing new project scholars, contributing to project practice and carefully considering the legacy of projects and project studies in society.

This paper positions research as a social process, and the role of researchers as actors shaping research in project studies.