Verification of the Need to Develop a Tool for Selecting Research Methods and Techniques

• Autorzy: Henryk Dźwigoł
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The aim of this paper was to verify the necessity of devising a tool, method, procedure of selecting research methods and techniques for the research process, in order to increase the quality and reliability of the conducted research. Design/methodology/approach: Within the scope of the research process a questionnaire was used, which was distributed in two forms to management theoreticians and practitioners. 401 management science theoreticians and 118 management practice representatives were examined. Thus, the research problem was defined as follows: Is it necessary to develop (model, procedure, tool, approach) to the research process? Findings: Conclusions derived from the completed analysis of national and foreign literature on management sciences indicate the need to perform a diagnosis. The diagnosis refers to the development of a procedure for selecting methods and techniques for the sake of research processes in management sciences. The research carried out has identified the methods, procedures and approaches that are most relevant to the research process and its various components in management sciences. This makes it possible not only to determine the extent to which individual methods and techniques are used or combined, but also to identify certain regularities in the perception of the research process in this context and other variables that may influence the relevance of the appropriate choice of methods and techniques for the research process in management science in order to increase the reliability, level and quality of the research conducted. Research limitations/implications: The methodological and method-related correctness of the presented work is confirmed by the answers to the questions included in the questionnaires. They most often highlighted barriers in planning and conducting scientific research, obstacles beyond the methodological ones, mistakes most often made in scientific research in management sciences, the applicability of results to business practice. Practical implications: The conclusions of the research confirm that for the effective operation of the research process, it is necessary to develop a kind of 'behavioural algorithm' that will allow methods to be adapted to the posed research problem, once the gap has been defined, which will result in added value for practice. This is also confirmed by reactions of management practitioners to these statements. 89% of the surveyed practitioners believe that there is a need to develop a model, procedure, tool or approach to support the appropriate selection of methods for the research process. Social implications: In management sciences it is genuinely easy to create 'new theories' that are not finally verified. A swift introduction of new, recommended management-related concepts and methods, as well as their rapid rejection resulted in negative organisational changes. It would be difficult to determine the reasons why the applied methods lack effectiveness. Was the failure triggered by an inadequate method used for a management process or by its unskilful implementation. Originality/value: One verified the necessity of devising a tool, method, procedure of selecting research methods and techniques for the research process, in order to increase the quality and reliability of the conducted research. The elaborated methods, procedures or models were verified in practice with the aim of making the research reliable. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Management sciences; Research methods; Scientific research; Research process

PL

Nauki o zarządzaniu; Metody badawcze; Badania naukowe; Proces badawczy

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2020
• Numer: z. 146 Competitiveness and Development of Regions in the Context of European Integration and Globalization. State - Trends -Strategies
• Strony: 87--98

Twórcy

autor

Henryk Dźwigoł

• Silesian University of Technology

Bibliografia

• 1. Akhavan, P., Ebrahim, N.A., Fetrati, M.A., & Pezeshkan, A. (2016). Major trends in knowledge management research: a bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1249-1264.
• 2. Ares, G., and Varela, P. (Eds.) (2018). Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 1: New Approaches to Classic Methods. UK: Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, Duxford.
• 3. Arévalo, L.E.B., & Espinosa, A. (2015). Theoretical approaches to managing complexity in organizations: A comparative analysis. Estudios Gerenciales, 31(134), 20-29.
• 4. Bazaluk, O. (2015). The theory of evolution. Philosophy and Cosmology, 15(15), 25-33.
• 5. Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.
• 6. Bertrand, I., & Hughes, P. (2017). Media research methods: Audiences, institutions, texts. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• 7. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 3-37, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877.
• 8. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
• 9. Burke, W.W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
• 10. Chang, J.F. (2016). Business process management systems: strategy and implementation. Auerbach Publications.
• 11. Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. SAGE Publications Limited.
• 12. Drack, M. (2015). Ludwig von Bertalanffy's organismic view on the theory of evolution. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 324(2), 77-90.
• 13. Dźwigoł, H., & Dźwigoł-Barosz, M. (2018). Scientific research methodology in management sciences. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 2(25), 424-437.
• 14. Dzwigol, H., Aleinikova, O., Umanska, Y., Shmygol, N., & Pushak, Y. (2019). An Entrepreneurship Model for Assessing the Investment Attractiveness of Regions. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(SI1), 1-7.
• 15. Galport, M., & Galport, N. (2015). Methodological trends in research on evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 148, 17-29.
• 16. Graham, E., & Walton, H. (2018). Theological reflection: methods. scm Press.
• 17. Hair, J.F., Page, M., and Brunsveld, N. (2019). Essentials of Business Research Methods. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203374.
• 18. Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017, January). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 18, No. 1.
• 19. Jaakkola, E., & Hallin, A. (2018). Organizational structures for new service development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(2), 280-297.
• 20. Kessler, J.K., & Pozen, D.E. (2016). Working Themselves Impure: A Life Cycle Theory of Legal Theories. The University of Chicago Law Review, 1819-1892.
• 21. Labarca, C. (2017). Qualitative Research for beginners. Maracaibo, Venezuela.
• 22. Leech, G.N. (2016). Principles of pragmatics. Routledge.
• 23. Mykytas, M., Terenchuk, S., & Zhuravska, N. (2018). Models, methods and tools of optimizing costs for development of Clusterized organizational structures in construction industry. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.2), 250-254.
• 24. Nadler, G. (1967). Work Systems Design: The Ideals Concept. Irwin, Homewood.
• 25. Palvia, P., Daneshvar Kakhki, M., Ghoshal, T., Uppala, V., & Wang, W. (2015). Methodological and topic trends in information systems research: A meta-analysis of IS journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 30.
• 26. Prause, G. (2015). Sustainable business models and structures for Industry 4.0. Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues, 5(2).
• 27. Putnam, L.L., Fairhurst, G.T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171.
• 28. Quinton, S., Reynolds, N. (2018). Understanding Research in the Digital Age. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• 29. Robbins, D. (2009). Understanding research methods. A guide for the public and nonprofit manager. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
• 30. Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A complex view of industry 4.0. Sage Open, 6(2), 2158244016653987.
• 31. Thompson, J.D. (1956) On Building an Administrative Science. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, 102-111.
• 32. Vaivio, J., & Sirén, A. (2010) Insights into method triangulation and "paradigms" in interpretive management accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 130-141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.03.001.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2020.146.7