Reference no: EM13374500

Part-1

Researcher's culture is very well present in the social constructivism approach. According to Dowling, Schuler and Welch (1998) that many researchers view culture as a very vague variable representing social and economic factors which may be invoked to explain the results of their studies. As a matter of fact there is a lack of common agreements on the scientific paradigms especially in cross-cultural management which could lead to resisting operational definition. Diversity in cultures and lack of common scientific paradigms might result into contradiction across different researches of the same subject.

Question

To what extent do you foresee that our own culture might influence your selected dissertation topic outcome "The big crew change"? What are going to do to overcome the difficulties concerning definition and operationalization of culture?

Part-2

You mentioned, and I quote: "A factor not discussed by Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012) is the natural preference of the author. If the author has a personal style which favours one form of epistomology, they should consider choosing or directing their investigation in this direction rather than adopt a style which is abnormal for them."

However, you then conclude with the following: "Therefore, I must ensure that I either choose a subject that can be investigated using an approach of positivism, or I adapt my personal preference to use a constructionism approach. In either situation the objective is to align the subject and epistemology to give the greatest chance of success".

I wonder which is better, or in fact possible - to direct investigation in a direction that 'fits' with the researcher's outlook, or to adapt personal preference to match the specific research.

Chinn (2009), in his article mentions how epistemological beliefs can definitely determine hoe a person gains knowledge- where a positivist person believe knowledge is certain, exact and external, and thus may not mange to support evidence of different viewpoints and therefore impede innovative ideas or enquiry-based learning. On the other hand, in direct comparison, a constructionist may believe in interrelation of ideas and knowledge- and not just disconnected facts and may take too many controversial, unproved ideas on board.

Question

What do you all think- how much influence does your personal epistemological beliefs or style influence your research findings?

Part-3

I agreed that you mentioned in your post "Positivism is philosophical approach which demands possession of the knowledge via real experience and logical /rational reasoning". On the other hand, Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012, p.22) stated that "the key idea of positivism is that the social world externally exists and the properties should be measured through physical/objective methods rather than being inferred subjectively through reflection, intuition and sensation". Since everyone may has different thought for the same thing they experienced, how the idea of positivism can be measured without intuition and sensation because the approach of positivism may be via real experience?

Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012, p.21) mentioned that "epistemology is about different ways of inquiring into the nature of social and physical worlds". Social construction and positivism seems to be the opposite, they are the different way to understand and get better knowledge out of the square , which method do you preferred in the real practise?

Part-4

I would like to propose that to some extent the subject being researched as well as the target audience that surrounds an individual's research topic could influence the adoption of a particular epistemological stance towards this project. Müller, (2008) as cited in Biedenbach and Müller, (2011), gives an example of the research undertaken in the field of project management is generally done so from the positivist viewpoint the preference being the use of case studies. However it can be difficult to establish what methodology an individual uses during their research as this information is rarely made apparent (Smyth and Morris, 2007 cited in Biedenbach and Müller 2011).

If a researcher deviates from the norm, i.e. where there is an established relationship between positivism and quantitative research methodologies, (Bredillet, 2008 cited in Biedenbach and Müller 2011) can lead to a situation where they leave themselves vulnerable to criticism and being misinterpreted (Biedenbach and Müller 2011). The other side of this coin can result in a degree of bias being leveled against researchers that use research methods that fall outside an individual's belief system. There may therefore be some justified calls for researches to make completely clear the epistemological stance that forms the bedrock of their research piece. This does not seem to be done. A study of conference papers delivered to IRNOP over a thirteen-year period found that only a small number of papers operated in this way (Biedenbach and Müller 2011).

Question

Any additional comments or questions you may have would be welcome.