Comparative Methodological Critique - Essay Example

Comparative Methodological Critique Introduction The development of research methods worldwide has been related with the need for verification of the assumptions made in the context of academic and business research; on the other hand, researchers in different sectors seem to have different perceptions on the principles and ethics of academic research; they are also likely to dispute regarding the priorities of research – as these priorities can be differentiated under the influence of the environment – including the participants – and the resources available. In any case, the researchers need to apply the principles of scientific research and avoid proceeding to any initiative that will affect the study’s credibility, for instance the failure in appropriately citing the texts quoted from another study, the failure to inform the participants on the study’s scopes and its ethics – a fact that can lead even to the rejection of a particular study. This paper explores the various aspects of two studies that are based on different research methods: a qualitative and a quantitative one. As a sample of quantitative research, the study of Krishnan et al. (2005) under the title ‘A few good women – on top management teams’ has been chosen; the context of the qualitative research has been also examined through the study of Liff et al. (2001) under the title ‘Distorted views through the glass ceiling: the construction of women’s understandings of promotion and senior management positions’; it is proved that the two studies have been developed in the context of scientific research and therefore they’ve managed to meet their scope despite the delays caused because of failures in different phases of research in the context described below. 2. Brief description of the studies – reasoning of the studies Krishnan et al. (2005) have tried to examine the potential influence of gender diversity on organizational performance; a series of additional issues have been examined in the context of the study, like the level of gender diversity in modern organization, the environmental characteristics (which in this case refer to the demographic characteristics of the participants) and the role of women managers in changing the internal organizational environment. The reasons that Krishnan et al. (2005) chose the specific subject is the fact that gender has been proved in the literature to influence the performance of employees – as a result of the organization; the aspects of this problem need to be highlighted; despite the development of social and cultural values worldwide there are still factors, like the gender, that can influence human behaviour but also the personal and professional development. The study of Liff et al. (2001) refers to a similar issue: the reasons for the limited number of women in senior management positions; the perceptions of women and their way of thinking cannot be considered of being the only reason for the limitation of the role of women in the higher business positions; however, it has been proved that the policies applied on the workplace in regard to the gender equality are limited – and non effective. This is the main reason that Liff et al. (2001) decided to examine this issue through the interviews – the use of qualitative research in this study has been considered as the most effective solution in order to identify all the key aspects of the issue under examination without negatively affected the study’s credibility. 3. Aims and objectives of the studies The objectives of the two studies can be identified by referring to their research methods but also to the assumptions of the researchers involved. In the study of Krishnan et al. (2005) the following objectives have been set – as assumed through the examination of study’s content and structure: a) the identification of gender diversity at specific level of the organizational hierarchy – the top management teams, b) the effects of gender diversity on the workplace. Furthermore, the above researchers aim to prove that the gender diversity in workplace can affect organizational performance – an assumption which is verified using appropriate research methods – as described in the sections that follow. On the other hand, Liff et al. (2001) aim to prove that ‘the under-representation of women in senior management positions can be explained partially by the messages they are given about the promotion process and the requirements of senior jobs’ (Liff et al., 2001, p.19). As for the objectives of the study of Liff et al. (2001) these are closely related with the aim of the study as described above; these objectives can be described as follows: a) is the behaviour of women at work affected more by her success in her work or by her family environment, b) which are the reasons that might prohibit women from participating equally in the promotion processes, c) which are the causes for the women absence from her work – is her family more likely to influence her not to go to work than the environment in the organization – it is assumed that reference is made to an organizational environment which is hostile towards the presence of women in the highest levels of the organizational hierarchy. 4. Comparison of the rationale for the research design In scientific research – including the academic research and the business research – the researcher is free to choose among the research methods that he thinks that they best suit to the needs of his study; in this context, the design of the research is developed under the monitoring of the researcher who sets the criteria on which his study will be developed; however, quite often the development of the research exceeds its limits – a problem that usually occurs because the rights of the participants in regard to the study are violated. Taking into consideration the issues discussed above we could state that the decision of Liff et al (2001) to choose the qualitative research is based on specific criteria: a) their research had to refer to a series of different issues/ problems and b) the sample used in the specific study has been rather limited – 50 participants – which means that the qualitative research was most indicated in order to ensure the study’s credibility. On the other hand, the sample used in the study of Krishnan et al. (2005) has been extensive – a total of 679 firms have participated in the research conducted for the above study; a qualitative research method could not be developed at such levels (Westerman, 2006, p.263); when the information gathered on the issue under examination cannot be measured and evaluated because of the volume of data involved, then the quantitative research need to be selected – therefore, the choice of quantitative research method by Krishnan et a. (2005) seems to be totally justified. The form of the research method chosen in a specific study is going to affect the method of data analysis – referring to the method that will be used for the analysis of the findings of the research. 5. Research questions – epistemological position in guiding the research design in each study 5.1 Is the research design ‘fit for purpose’? As noted above, the two studies are based on different research methods because of their differences in the sample used and the overall extension of the study; more specifically, the study of Liff et al (2001) has been based on the qualitative research – interviews – as the number of the study’s participants was rather limited – only two persons; however, quantitative research was necessary for Krishnan et al. (2005) because of the volume of data that had to be handled through his research. In this context, it can be noted that the research design ‘fits for purpose’ – a fact that is verified from the relevant views of researchers that have studied the area of qualitative and quantitative research. More specifically, in the study of Silverman (p.342) it is noted that ‘qualitative investigators think they can get close to the actor’s perspective through detailed interviewing and observation’ (Silverman, p.342); the effort of Liff et al. (2001) to conduct the research using a limited number of people and through the specific research tool proves that the aim of the above researcher has been to develop a close contact with the participants – otherwise he could have addressed a high number of people – he avoided to act in this way. On the other hand, Marshall et al. (2006, 52) noted that one of the critical requirements of studies that are based on the qualitative research is that its research design is well justified and structured in order to prove the competence of the researcher to investigate the specific issue. In the case of quantitative research method used by Krishnan et al. (2005) the following issues need to be highlighted: a) quantitative research is highly based on observations (Balnaves et al., 2001, p.33); the above researchers use this research tool in order to obtain explanations on their study’s issues, b) the choice for the use of quantitative research belongs to the researcher who can decided to use the specific research scheme in accordance with the needs of his research; explanations need to be given regarding the chosen research method especially in regard to other research methods; however, in the study of Krishnan et al. (2005) the reasoning of the research method is brief, a fact that could create problems regarding the credibility of the study even if the literature is supportive towards the use of this research method when critical issues need to be resolved. In quantitative studies there are also certain criteria of success – in many cases the combination of these two research methods is decided in order to increase the credibility of the study; by combining the qualitative and the quantitative research methods another important target is achieved: issues that may not be analyzed at a satisfactory level they will be reviewed and more chances exist for their incorporation in the study. 6. Presentation and critical evaluation of data collection and analysis Krishnan et al. (2005) follows a specific theoretical framework in order to present the findings of the study: the upper echelon framework; on the other hand, Liff et al (2001) prefers the common method of presentation of data; the critical comparison of the views of participants has been used by Liff et al. (2001) as the main method of data analysis. The differences in the methods of data analysis used in the two studies can be explained by referring to their different research methodology framework. However, from another point of view, another difference between the two studies could be implied: Liff et al. (2001) is based on the traditional methods of analysis – which are tested in similar fields; on the other hand, Krishnan et al. (2005) seems to prefer alternative methods of data analysis – probably aiming to identify alternative explanations on his study’s issues. 7. The good practice as a basis for the development of the two studies In order to identify the level at which the studies under examination have been based on good practice it is necessary to describe primarily the context of good practice in academic research. At the next level, the level at which the good practice has been applied on each study will be examined by direct reference to the study’s characteristics and methods of development. The good practice in academic research is depended on certain factors: a) the criteria on which the studies are based – if these criteria are related to the issues under examination and if they are appropriate in terms of the conditions in the environment in which the study is developed, b) the design of the research methods: the research methods employed in a particular study need to serve the needs of the study and not support personal interests, unless if referring to the interest of the researcher to prove the validity of his/ her assumptions (Brewerton et al., 2001, p.37), c) the appropriateness of the research methods; the research methods chosen need to be aligned with the available resources; research methods that are not feasible – because of the lack of resources for their realization – should not be incorporated in academic research, d) the level at which participants – in case of empirical research – have been informed on the ethical context of the research; it is assumed that the ethical principles of the study are made known to its participants – prior to their participation in the research – ensuring that their rights are adequately protected (Bryman et al., 2007, p. 19), e) the level at which the resources used in the study have been tested as for their credibility; the resources used in the scientific research needs to be credible; for this reason, it is usually suggested that only academic resources are used in scientific research and f) the use of the material retrieved for the needs of the study; at this point it should be made clear that the researcher is obliged to use the material gathered for his study carefully; this obligation can have two different forms: f1) the researcher has to cite appropriately the text copied from other authors and f2) the researcher must not publish or otherwise made known to third persons the content of questionnaires and other documents that were used for the development of the study’s empirical research (Denzin et al., 2005, p. 48). 8. Conclusion - The advantages/ disadvantages of qualitative or quantitative research design used in each study The examination of the issues presented above lead to the assumption that both the qualitative and the quantitative research can be valuable when examining issues that are related with social behaviour – even if these issues refer to specific business activities; in any case, the social life is closely related with the economy and any turbulence in one of these sectors can be followed by turbulences in the other sector. The research method used by Krishnan et al. (2005) has the advantage of its sampling size – a fact that increases the credibility of the specific study; however, problems may appear in the analysis of findings – because of the potential ineffectiveness of the traditional methods of analysis of results, Krishnan et al. (2005) chose the upper echelon framework, a theory of analysis of results that is not tested widely. On the other hand, the study of Liff et al (2001) has another advantage: the close cooperation with participants for the development of the research – through the interviews; the specific research method is of higher value – compared to the research method chosen by Krishnan et al. (2005) but still, there are problems that could possibly lead to the limitation of its credibility – referring to the volume of the information retrieved. References Articles compared: 1) Krishnan, H. A. and Park, D. (2005) ‘A few good women – on top management teams’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 1715-1720 [Quantitative Study] 2. Liff, S., and Ward, K. (2001) ‘Distorted views through the glass ceiling: the construction of women’s understandings of promotion and senior management positions’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 8(1): 19-36 [Qualitative Study] ------------------ Brewerton, P., Millward, L., 2001. Organizational research methods: a guide for students and researchers. SAGE Bryman, A., Bell, E., 2007. Business research methods. Oxford University Pres Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., 2005. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Marshall, C., Rossman, G., 2006. Designing qualitative research. SAGE Silverman, D., 2004. Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. SAGE Westerman, M., 2006. What counts as “good” quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods? New Ideas in Psychology, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp. 263-274 Read More