Search results

Processual approaches to entrepreneurship have increasingly captured researchers’ interest. One such approach that tries to understand entrepreneurs in real time by looking with them, not at them, has been termed withness (Shotter, 2006). But how does one design a study that captures this experience of living in the flow? In this methodological reflection, we propose using the metaphor of warp and weft to think of grounded theory research designs that seek to approximate withness. To this end, we also reflect on our experience studying the unfolding processes in international new ventures and highlight the usefulness of multiple data collection instruments, notably diaries and interviews.

The use of structured literature review methods like bibliometric analysis is growing in the management fields, but there is limited knowledge on how they can be facilitated by technology. Hence, we conducted a broad overview of software tools, their roles, and limitations in structured (bibliometric) literature reviewing activities. Subsequently, we show that several software tools are freely available to aid in searching the literature, identifying/ extracting relevant publications, screening/assessing quality of the extracted data, and performing analyses to generate insights from the literature. However, their applications may be confronted with several challenges such as limited analytical and functional capabilities, inadequate technological skills of researchers, and the fact that the researcher's insights are still needed to generate compelling conclusions from the results produced by software tools. Consequently, we contribute toward advancing the methodologies for performing structured reviews by providing a comprehensive and updated overview of the knowledge base of key technological software tools and the conduct of structured or bibliometric literature reviews.

The sex work research field has expanded significantly in recent years, and a myriad of studies have highlighted diverse forms of injustice that sex workers endure. Sex workers are a marginalised and criminalised population and thus researchers have an ethical responsibility to undertake research that challenges existing social conditions and can help support sex worker-led campaigns for change. But what does ‘making a difference’ mean in the context of sex work research and what factors may constrain the extent to which this can be achieved? In this chapter, I explore the promise and pitfalls of undertaking politically engaged, activist research on sex work. I do so by reflecting on my experience as a researcher in the New Zealand context. The aim of this chapter is to unpack the challenges of undertaking research for social change and to explore the possibilities for strengthening the impact of research in this ideologically charged area.

This study offers an in-depth examination of Google Bard, an advanced artificial intelligence chatbot created by Google, focusing specifically on its potential impact on academic research. This discussion aims to comprehensively explore the features of Google Bard, highlighting its capabilities in data management, facilitating collaborative discussions, and enhancing accessibility to complex research. In addition to the aforementioned positive characteristics, we will also delve into the limitations and ethical considerations associated with this innovative device. The functionality of the system is constrained by the limitations imposed by its pre-established algorithms and training data. In addition, there are significant concerns regarding data privacy, potential biases in its responses stemming from its training data, and the wider societal implications associated with a heavy reliance on machine-generated content. Ensuring responsible and ethical utilization of Bard necessitates Google's provision of transparent communication regarding its development process. In light of the prominent functionalities demonstrated by Google Bard, it is imperative for researchers to engage in a rigorous examination of the information it presents, thereby safeguarding against the inadvertent propagation of misinformation or biased viewpoints. This will lay the groundwork for its effective integration into the academic research methodology.

All good social science researchers recognise that each investigative paradigm and their respective research tools (e.g. experiments, surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires) is limited in its exploratory power but especially by its dependence on the interests, perspectives and skills of the researchers employing it. They determine the research questions pursued and the questions asked of the respondents. Constructivist researchers however, though they too focus on an area they deem deserving of research and carry their own biases, seek to explore the respondents' perspectives of those domains, what they consider important and construe from their knowledge and life experiences and why they act as they do. Participants in research also bring to the task their own orientations, including their suspicions about researchers' motives, their willingness to take part in the investigation and their personal gains from doing so. When the aim of the research is agentic change, these are critical considerations for research design, data analysis and interpretation. This chapter, after summarising the main tenets of personal and social constructivist theory, explores and evaluates constructivist methodology, illustrating benefits and limitations through examples from research practice of its tools and analytical procedures from research conducted by the authors and their doctoral researchers across and between disciplines and levels in higher education. Techniques used include repertory grids, narrative and pictorial methods used to study, inter alia, staff development issues and transformative doctoral learning. Caveats emerging from practice will be included that limit and focus appropriately the collection, analysis and interpretation of results. Finally, arguments are presented for why, when and how to adopt, or indeed to avoid, these approaches and methods within such research.

Systematic literature review (SLR) papers have gained significant importance during the last years as many reputed journals have asked for literature review submissions from the authors. However, at the same time, authors are experiencing a high number of desk rejections because of a lack of quality and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to offer guidance to researchers who intend to communicate SLR papers in top-rated journals. We attempt to offer a guide to buddy researchers who plan to write SLR papers. This purpose is achieved by clearly stating how the traditional review method is different from SLR, when and how can each type of literature review method be used, writing effective motivation of a review paper and finally how to synthesize the available literature. We have also presented a few suggestions for writing an impactful SLR in the last. Overall, this chapter serves as a guide to various aspirants of SLR paper to understand the prerequisites of an SLR paper and offers deep insights to bring in more clarity before writing an SLR paper, thereby reducing the chances of desk rejection.