Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose.- "Zora Neale Hurston"
My reflections on the book "Engaged Scholarship" by Andrew H. Van de Ven. I wrote this in Summer 2009 when I was just about to become a novice doctoral student.
1: In a Professional School
April 20, 2009 Monday
The need for engaged scholarship stems from the observation that there exists a conspicuous gap between theory and practice. It can easily be attributed to the problem of knowledge transfer between academia and practice and vise a versa. Even though the practical world does not engage with the academia directly on a large part, one interesting question that arises is “From where does a person get the knowledge for a skill that he applies at work?”
The practical knowledge applied at work is relevant only in a certain context. An experienced person over the time acquires the ability and the know how of what to do when encountered by a certain event. A scholar however sees the case as a part of a bigger picture. He perceives the event as a subset of a bigger entity. The scientific knowledge is a more generalized version of practical knowledge. Hence academic and practical knowledge should complement each other but the partnership never succeeds to its potential. This can be attributed to the problem of knowledge production. The fundamental idea of the knowledge production deals with engaging all the concerned parties. It includes the stakeholders, the researchers, the researchers with opposing views and the practitioners. Research without engaging them all may produce a rich stock of publications but neither is that knowledge put into practice nor is it of any use for advancement of scientific knowledge.
It is hence very important that an engaged scholar views the organizations and institutes as places to learn from rather than mere data collection sites or funding sources. The Land Grant University is a good example of this idea. The end result desired from the engaged scholarship lends itself to creating a knowledge base advancing scientific and practical knowledge. A diamond model is proposed to advance the idea of engaged scholarship. However this model is actually a well defined methodical process and not a plain theory. The diamond model signifies the idea that a scholar can advance the fundamental knowledge by involving people with relevant perspectives in the formulation of the problem, building the theory, the research design and the problem solving. One very interesting thing to be considered is that these can be done in any order depending on the nature of the problem being investigated and the philosophy of the researcher investigating the problem.
The discussion that follows the introduction of diamond model is the underlying philosophy of engaged scholarship. Two or models are compared and their results are observed. If the results are similar then they are considered more plausible. These observations converge from the various tested models. There could however always be conflicting models with inconsistent findings. Only the logically proven most reliable models are selected and contradicting models are phased out from further consideration. Problem formulation hence plays a crucial role. In problem formulation stage it can be discovered how much is the problem being investigated can be put in practical use. It is also very beneficial to build alternative theories to investigate a problem.
The complexity of the problem largely determines the need of the alternative theories. Design of the research comes next. Research design stage determines the final model among the available alternative models. Action research is one of the four forms of engaged scholarship discussed. The other three are Informed Basic Research, Collaborative Research and Design and Evaluation Research. Action research methodology not only involves engaging with the client but also intervening and actively participating in client’s culture. The participation of the client is always equally important.
Three Key Notes:
1. Research in itself is meaningful only if it is
a) Relevant in practical use
b) Helps advance the scientific knowledge.
2. Engaged Scholarship deals with involving all the concerned parties which could be:
a) Other researches with possible conflicting views.
b) Stakeholders.
c) Practitioners.
3. No researcher is individually fully capable enough and no research is complete in itself. It is only a generalized phenomenon of a small complex problem that exists in the universe. The universe is too complex to be understood in entirety.
April 20, 2009 Monday
The need for engaged scholarship stems from the observation that there exists a conspicuous gap between theory and practice. It can easily be attributed to the problem of knowledge transfer between academia and practice and vise a versa. Even though the practical world does not engage with the academia directly on a large part, one interesting question that arises is “From where does a person get the knowledge for a skill that he applies at work?”
The practical knowledge applied at work is relevant only in a certain context. An experienced person over the time acquires the ability and the know how of what to do when encountered by a certain event. A scholar however sees the case as a part of a bigger picture. He perceives the event as a subset of a bigger entity. The scientific knowledge is a more generalized version of practical knowledge. Hence academic and practical knowledge should complement each other but the partnership never succeeds to its potential. This can be attributed to the problem of knowledge production. The fundamental idea of the knowledge production deals with engaging all the concerned parties. It includes the stakeholders, the researchers, the researchers with opposing views and the practitioners. Research without engaging them all may produce a rich stock of publications but neither is that knowledge put into practice nor is it of any use for advancement of scientific knowledge.
It is hence very important that an engaged scholar views the organizations and institutes as places to learn from rather than mere data collection sites or funding sources. The Land Grant University is a good example of this idea. The end result desired from the engaged scholarship lends itself to creating a knowledge base advancing scientific and practical knowledge. A diamond model is proposed to advance the idea of engaged scholarship. However this model is actually a well defined methodical process and not a plain theory. The diamond model signifies the idea that a scholar can advance the fundamental knowledge by involving people with relevant perspectives in the formulation of the problem, building the theory, the research design and the problem solving. One very interesting thing to be considered is that these can be done in any order depending on the nature of the problem being investigated and the philosophy of the researcher investigating the problem.
The discussion that follows the introduction of diamond model is the underlying philosophy of engaged scholarship. Two or models are compared and their results are observed. If the results are similar then they are considered more plausible. These observations converge from the various tested models. There could however always be conflicting models with inconsistent findings. Only the logically proven most reliable models are selected and contradicting models are phased out from further consideration. Problem formulation hence plays a crucial role. In problem formulation stage it can be discovered how much is the problem being investigated can be put in practical use. It is also very beneficial to build alternative theories to investigate a problem.
The complexity of the problem largely determines the need of the alternative theories. Design of the research comes next. Research design stage determines the final model among the available alternative models. Action research is one of the four forms of engaged scholarship discussed. The other three are Informed Basic Research, Collaborative Research and Design and Evaluation Research. Action research methodology not only involves engaging with the client but also intervening and actively participating in client’s culture. The participation of the client is always equally important.
Three Key Notes:
1. Research in itself is meaningful only if it is
a) Relevant in practical use
b) Helps advance the scientific knowledge.
2. Engaged Scholarship deals with involving all the concerned parties which could be:
a) Other researches with possible conflicting views.
b) Stakeholders.
c) Practitioners.
3. No researcher is individually fully capable enough and no research is complete in itself. It is only a generalized phenomenon of a small complex problem that exists in the universe. The universe is too complex to be understood in entirety.
2: Philosophy of Science Underlying Engaged Scholarship
April 27, 2009 Monday
Four philosophies of science are introduced and then their impact on engaged scholarship are discussed. A comparative study of these philosophies is emphasized to have a proper understanding of the underlying idea of engaged scholarship. As discussed in the previous chapter, engaged scholarship includes dealing with researchers with different or opposing views, it is here where it is discussed who those other researchers could be. Social science is an abstract topic and cannot be simply generalized. Hence solving a complex problem includes communicating with people with diverse perspectives with different philosophical beliefs. The philosophy of a researcher should be his own choice and not be inherited from the teachers and mentors by default. A big discussion follows to describe the history of different types of philosophies. A few things to be noticed before proceeding to the discussion of these philosophies are that; a) A complex problem involves multiple perspectives. b) Physical materials are much easier to understand as compared to complex evolving reflexive social processes.
The purpose of scientific inquiry is to create knowledge of the unknown and not mere mention that a certain thing is unknown. Philosophers can be broadly divided into followers of two different ideals, Rationalists and Empiricists. Rationalists believe that reasoning and ideas alone provide reliable knowledge and can determine the laws of the physical world. Empiricists however in contrast believe that sensory experience alone provides the reliable knowledge. The inductive methodology of empiricists draws conclusions with the help of past and present empirical observations. The alternative philosophies of science as discussed are: Logical Positivism, Relativism, Pragmatism and Realism.
Logical Positivism: Logical Positivism emphasizes on philosophy as an analysis of science in a logical perspective. Science is considered the source of synthetic knowledge and mathematics is considered the source of analytical knowledge. It uses verificationism for this purpose. Verificationism has two major implications on logical positivism. The first is that it addresses the gap between science and logic. The second implication is the separation of genesis of theory from its validity. The approach of logical positivism is that it formulates a question in propositional form and later empirical tests and performed to verify the propositions. The biggest drawback of logical positivism however is that the process of reasoning gets no attention as compared to finished product of scientific theorizing.
Relativism: Relativism is the alternative set of philosophies that emerged in opposition to positivism. The demarcation of genesis and the validity of a theory are denied and the idea of socially constructed nature of scientific knowledge gets the support. Postmodernism emerged as the idea with the biggest opposition to logical positivism. Postmodernism disregards the difference between the presence of an entity and its representation. It also denies the linguistic essentialism. It shows entities as a function of their respective relationship with other entities. Two ideas of reasoning mentioned are “God’s Eye Frame of Reference” and “Participant Frame of Reference”. In god’s eye frame of reference there is only one description of how the world is. Participant frame of reference in contrast encourages an open minded attitude, engagement and learning with others.
Pragmatism: Pragmatism brings together rationalism and empiricism. In this belief, the criterion of a truth is the extent of the time for which it can sustain a long term commitment to the scientific community along with the success of the model.
Realism: The philosophy of realism states that there exists a real world regardless of the capability of human mind to comprehend it. Realism accepts the existence of unobservables and incomprehensibility of entirety. Science develops over the time and progresses towards closer approximation of reality. The latest theories cannot be true in totality but they are truer than previous theories. Critical realism is an idea which lies between positivism and relativism. Critical realism acknowledges the weakness of our knowledge of reality in that it is theory laden and conceptually mediated. The generalization of experimental outcomes in denied.
Three Key Notes:
1. The criterion for truth is its standing the test of the time apart from the success of the application.
2. Science is an error correction process. It develops with time and progresses towards closer approximation of reality.
3. The impact of this chapter on engaged scholarship:
The complex the problem is, the more is the need for engagement of different scholars with diverse perspectives. Such engagement may even produce different and contradicting results but such results should not be denied altogether. They only represent a pluralistic view. Only the models that better fit the problems are eventually selected.
April 27, 2009 Monday
Four philosophies of science are introduced and then their impact on engaged scholarship are discussed. A comparative study of these philosophies is emphasized to have a proper understanding of the underlying idea of engaged scholarship. As discussed in the previous chapter, engaged scholarship includes dealing with researchers with different or opposing views, it is here where it is discussed who those other researchers could be. Social science is an abstract topic and cannot be simply generalized. Hence solving a complex problem includes communicating with people with diverse perspectives with different philosophical beliefs. The philosophy of a researcher should be his own choice and not be inherited from the teachers and mentors by default. A big discussion follows to describe the history of different types of philosophies. A few things to be noticed before proceeding to the discussion of these philosophies are that; a) A complex problem involves multiple perspectives. b) Physical materials are much easier to understand as compared to complex evolving reflexive social processes.
The purpose of scientific inquiry is to create knowledge of the unknown and not mere mention that a certain thing is unknown. Philosophers can be broadly divided into followers of two different ideals, Rationalists and Empiricists. Rationalists believe that reasoning and ideas alone provide reliable knowledge and can determine the laws of the physical world. Empiricists however in contrast believe that sensory experience alone provides the reliable knowledge. The inductive methodology of empiricists draws conclusions with the help of past and present empirical observations. The alternative philosophies of science as discussed are: Logical Positivism, Relativism, Pragmatism and Realism.
Logical Positivism: Logical Positivism emphasizes on philosophy as an analysis of science in a logical perspective. Science is considered the source of synthetic knowledge and mathematics is considered the source of analytical knowledge. It uses verificationism for this purpose. Verificationism has two major implications on logical positivism. The first is that it addresses the gap between science and logic. The second implication is the separation of genesis of theory from its validity. The approach of logical positivism is that it formulates a question in propositional form and later empirical tests and performed to verify the propositions. The biggest drawback of logical positivism however is that the process of reasoning gets no attention as compared to finished product of scientific theorizing.
Relativism: Relativism is the alternative set of philosophies that emerged in opposition to positivism. The demarcation of genesis and the validity of a theory are denied and the idea of socially constructed nature of scientific knowledge gets the support. Postmodernism emerged as the idea with the biggest opposition to logical positivism. Postmodernism disregards the difference between the presence of an entity and its representation. It also denies the linguistic essentialism. It shows entities as a function of their respective relationship with other entities. Two ideas of reasoning mentioned are “God’s Eye Frame of Reference” and “Participant Frame of Reference”. In god’s eye frame of reference there is only one description of how the world is. Participant frame of reference in contrast encourages an open minded attitude, engagement and learning with others.
Pragmatism: Pragmatism brings together rationalism and empiricism. In this belief, the criterion of a truth is the extent of the time for which it can sustain a long term commitment to the scientific community along with the success of the model.
Realism: The philosophy of realism states that there exists a real world regardless of the capability of human mind to comprehend it. Realism accepts the existence of unobservables and incomprehensibility of entirety. Science develops over the time and progresses towards closer approximation of reality. The latest theories cannot be true in totality but they are truer than previous theories. Critical realism is an idea which lies between positivism and relativism. Critical realism acknowledges the weakness of our knowledge of reality in that it is theory laden and conceptually mediated. The generalization of experimental outcomes in denied.
Three Key Notes:
1. The criterion for truth is its standing the test of the time apart from the success of the application.
2. Science is an error correction process. It develops with time and progresses towards closer approximation of reality.
3. The impact of this chapter on engaged scholarship:
The complex the problem is, the more is the need for engagement of different scholars with diverse perspectives. Such engagement may even produce different and contradicting results but such results should not be denied altogether. They only represent a pluralistic view. Only the models that better fit the problems are eventually selected.
3: Formulating the Research Problem
May 4, 2009 Monday
Research is often considered as a problem solving activity and aims to increase the human understanding of a phenomenon. This chapter discusses the process of the formulation of the problem for research. More often than not the problem formulation is usually the initial stage of the engaged scholarship. It lays the ground for subsequent steps and determines how they will be performed. The problem formulation is divided in to four interrelated activities of situating, grounding, diagnosing and resolving a research problem. These activities can be put in an orderly fashion if the problem is practical, clearly structured and so is the expected solution. It is but very unlikely to happen because generally the observations encountered during research are not consistent with the expected observations. A lot of observations are anomalous with the theory of the researcher/scholar. Sometimes it may even happen that the problem being studied deals with an unclear issue and the expected end results and unspecified.
The original source of the problem being investigated may be a practical problem to be dealt with, a theoretical discipline, or a personal experience/interest of the researcher. The challenges/issues however in the process of formulating a problem are that a) who is eventually going to benefit by this research? b) Whether proper attention to detail has been given and all the dimensions have been considered before formulating the problem. c) Is the problem being investigated for real or a product of ones imagination? It is very important to engage people related with this problem to ensure its authenticity. d) Whether the end solution goes beyond the available knowledge and helps the understanding of the phenomenon. Following are the stages discussed in the formulation of a research problem;
Situating the Problem: Research is motivated by the perception of an existing problem to be investigated. All the view points cannot be addressed hence the scholar should adopt a reflexive approach. Different scholars perceive problems in different ways. The level, context and scope of a problem hence play a crucial role. Two people may look at the cause of a crisis for totally different reasons. Hence how a problem is situated largely determines its approach and solution.
Grounding the Problem: The process of information gathering is a crucial part of the grounding of a problem. It includes personal experiences, direct observations, casual conversations, interviews and group meetings with the experienced people and reviewing of the related literature. These activities come up with particular and general answers. The particular answers address first hand experience of specific cases. The general answers are obtained from the literature of the prior research of the problem.
Diagnosing the Problem: The process of diagnosis tend to be solution driven. The grounding provides the raw material for the diagnosis. Expected things confirm to the known models of reality. The unexpected things are the anomalies/breakdowns during the course of discovery of the phenomenon. Humans have limited abilities to explain the phenomenon when an anomaly is encountered. Only if we are mentally prepared to encounter the anomalies we have a better chance of a valuable discovery. The more the researcher is experienced and familiar with the domain of the problem, the better equipped he is to deal with such anomalies. The reason for it is that his repertoire of alternative theories is sufficient to come up with alternative models to solve the issues. Usually the problems are ill structured over all but well structured in small components. Hence the task should be divided in to small tasks to get a better output. The solution of a case should be refined to a particular case rather than leaving it at the generalized version.
Problem Solving: The whole point of a solution of a problem is that it should go beyond the data given. The scholars eventually take away the minute details to come up with a generalized theory. There are however a few problems with the problem solving. The most important being the tendency to avoid complexity and biases. The biases can be avoided by meeting a group of people and try and come up with a solution in a systematic manner in a meeting, cognitive mapping and brainstorming of the problem in a group.
Three Key Notes:
1. It is very important to know at the very first stage of the formulation problem that who will benefit from the research and how it will help advance the knowledge.
2. The solution of a particular problem being addressed should be refined to a particular case to solve the problem for a client.
3. Eventually the researcher should take away the minute details to come up with a generalized theory to address the phenomenon.
May 4, 2009 Monday
Research is often considered as a problem solving activity and aims to increase the human understanding of a phenomenon. This chapter discusses the process of the formulation of the problem for research. More often than not the problem formulation is usually the initial stage of the engaged scholarship. It lays the ground for subsequent steps and determines how they will be performed. The problem formulation is divided in to four interrelated activities of situating, grounding, diagnosing and resolving a research problem. These activities can be put in an orderly fashion if the problem is practical, clearly structured and so is the expected solution. It is but very unlikely to happen because generally the observations encountered during research are not consistent with the expected observations. A lot of observations are anomalous with the theory of the researcher/scholar. Sometimes it may even happen that the problem being studied deals with an unclear issue and the expected end results and unspecified.
The original source of the problem being investigated may be a practical problem to be dealt with, a theoretical discipline, or a personal experience/interest of the researcher. The challenges/issues however in the process of formulating a problem are that a) who is eventually going to benefit by this research? b) Whether proper attention to detail has been given and all the dimensions have been considered before formulating the problem. c) Is the problem being investigated for real or a product of ones imagination? It is very important to engage people related with this problem to ensure its authenticity. d) Whether the end solution goes beyond the available knowledge and helps the understanding of the phenomenon. Following are the stages discussed in the formulation of a research problem;
Situating the Problem: Research is motivated by the perception of an existing problem to be investigated. All the view points cannot be addressed hence the scholar should adopt a reflexive approach. Different scholars perceive problems in different ways. The level, context and scope of a problem hence play a crucial role. Two people may look at the cause of a crisis for totally different reasons. Hence how a problem is situated largely determines its approach and solution.
Grounding the Problem: The process of information gathering is a crucial part of the grounding of a problem. It includes personal experiences, direct observations, casual conversations, interviews and group meetings with the experienced people and reviewing of the related literature. These activities come up with particular and general answers. The particular answers address first hand experience of specific cases. The general answers are obtained from the literature of the prior research of the problem.
Diagnosing the Problem: The process of diagnosis tend to be solution driven. The grounding provides the raw material for the diagnosis. Expected things confirm to the known models of reality. The unexpected things are the anomalies/breakdowns during the course of discovery of the phenomenon. Humans have limited abilities to explain the phenomenon when an anomaly is encountered. Only if we are mentally prepared to encounter the anomalies we have a better chance of a valuable discovery. The more the researcher is experienced and familiar with the domain of the problem, the better equipped he is to deal with such anomalies. The reason for it is that his repertoire of alternative theories is sufficient to come up with alternative models to solve the issues. Usually the problems are ill structured over all but well structured in small components. Hence the task should be divided in to small tasks to get a better output. The solution of a case should be refined to a particular case rather than leaving it at the generalized version.
Problem Solving: The whole point of a solution of a problem is that it should go beyond the data given. The scholars eventually take away the minute details to come up with a generalized theory. There are however a few problems with the problem solving. The most important being the tendency to avoid complexity and biases. The biases can be avoided by meeting a group of people and try and come up with a solution in a systematic manner in a meeting, cognitive mapping and brainstorming of the problem in a group.
Three Key Notes:
1. It is very important to know at the very first stage of the formulation problem that who will benefit from the research and how it will help advance the knowledge.
2. The solution of a particular problem being addressed should be refined to a particular case to solve the problem for a client.
3. Eventually the researcher should take away the minute details to come up with a generalized theory to address the phenomenon.
4: Building a Theory
May 11, 2009 Monday
Research is often considered as a problem solving activity and aims to increase the human understanding of a phenomenon. This chapter discusses the process of the formulation of the problem for research. More often than not the problem formulation is usually the initial stage of the engaged scholarship. It lays the ground for subsequent steps and determines how they will be performed. The problem formulation is divided in to four interrelated activities of situating, grounding, diagnosing and resolving a research problem. These activities can be put in an orderly fashion if the problem is practical, clearly structured and so is the expected solution. It is but very unlikely to happen because generally the observations encountered during research are not consistent with the expected observations. A lot of observations are anomalous with the theory of the researcher/scholar. Sometimes it may even happen that the problem being studied deals with an unclear issue and the expected end results and unspecified.
Conceiving a Theory (Abduction): Abduction is a creative hypothetical inference framed to solve a problem. Abduction begins when an anomaly is encountered. It begins with an idea which eventually becomes a theory. Several trials of the creation, construction and evaluation of theory by engaging others are needed. If the theory can withstand the numerous criticisms and evaluations, it is said to be good enough to advance scientific and practical knowledge. A hypothesis is developed so that it can explain the anomaly and the phenomenon behind it. Abductive reasoning assumes that facts are theory laden. It assumes that a theory is a pattern of conceptual organization. Theory creation is not coming up with an idea out of thin air, but coming up with numerous ideas that are scattered all over and which have been developed with experience and observations.
Using abductive reasoning we come up with “if then” statements by relying on our experience and knowledge. The more heterogeneous our thought trials are the better is the theory produced. To ensure that they are truly heterogeneous, a disciplined imagination using strong classification of the trials thoughts is recommended. The reason for such a heterogeneous approach is that individual scholars have limited classification systems. Engaging diverse and independent views hence offers better classifications of the problem domain. Eventually a criteria is used to filter out the weak classifications.
Constructing the Theory (Logical Deduction): Different terminologies are used in the process of construction of a theory. Logic is used to connect these terms to form a theory. According to the context the terms vary from being far, general and pluralistic to name a few. The levels of abstraction of terms are at conceptual level, construct level and the concrete level. The terms can have two types of definitions, semantic definition and constitutive definition. A semantic definition describes the meaning of a term as compared to other terms. A constitutive definition describes a term with respect to its components. The terms should be clearly defined to classify the subject matter in to distinct and important categories. A well classified subject matter results in a good theory and a good theory results in a well classified subject matter. But one should not aim for exactness in the terms as it may result in dogmatic attitude. Hence a certain level of ambiguity and generality is needed when defining the terms. Further propositions are described in detail to express the relationships among the terms.
Justifying the Theory (Inductive Reasoning): Theories can be justified in two ways, the first is by testing their empirical fit by inductive reasoning and the second by rhetorical arguments of logical validity, credibility and persuasiveness. Inductive arguments provide more knowledge than premises and make a source for a new knowledge. If a hypothesis is not proved wrong after multiple comparisons and testing with alternative theories/methods then it is considered to be very credible. Even though it might not have been logically proved or deduced to be true. The more the number of tests, the more the credibility it gains. A theory should be tested for validity, truth and persuasiveness. The criteria to evaluate a theory are that it should be simple, general and accurate. It cannot be all three at the same time and hence a compromise should be made.
Three Key Notes:
1. Theory creation is collecting ideas from different scattered sources and not relying on a single idea from a single source.
2. A strong classification of the trial thoughts is required. Engaging people from different perspectives helps to come up with heterogeneous trials.
3. Only when a theory stands the test of time by going through trials and is not proved to be incorrect, its credibility can be ensured.
May 11, 2009 Monday
Research is often considered as a problem solving activity and aims to increase the human understanding of a phenomenon. This chapter discusses the process of the formulation of the problem for research. More often than not the problem formulation is usually the initial stage of the engaged scholarship. It lays the ground for subsequent steps and determines how they will be performed. The problem formulation is divided in to four interrelated activities of situating, grounding, diagnosing and resolving a research problem. These activities can be put in an orderly fashion if the problem is practical, clearly structured and so is the expected solution. It is but very unlikely to happen because generally the observations encountered during research are not consistent with the expected observations. A lot of observations are anomalous with the theory of the researcher/scholar. Sometimes it may even happen that the problem being studied deals with an unclear issue and the expected end results and unspecified.
Conceiving a Theory (Abduction): Abduction is a creative hypothetical inference framed to solve a problem. Abduction begins when an anomaly is encountered. It begins with an idea which eventually becomes a theory. Several trials of the creation, construction and evaluation of theory by engaging others are needed. If the theory can withstand the numerous criticisms and evaluations, it is said to be good enough to advance scientific and practical knowledge. A hypothesis is developed so that it can explain the anomaly and the phenomenon behind it. Abductive reasoning assumes that facts are theory laden. It assumes that a theory is a pattern of conceptual organization. Theory creation is not coming up with an idea out of thin air, but coming up with numerous ideas that are scattered all over and which have been developed with experience and observations.
Using abductive reasoning we come up with “if then” statements by relying on our experience and knowledge. The more heterogeneous our thought trials are the better is the theory produced. To ensure that they are truly heterogeneous, a disciplined imagination using strong classification of the trials thoughts is recommended. The reason for such a heterogeneous approach is that individual scholars have limited classification systems. Engaging diverse and independent views hence offers better classifications of the problem domain. Eventually a criteria is used to filter out the weak classifications.
Constructing the Theory (Logical Deduction): Different terminologies are used in the process of construction of a theory. Logic is used to connect these terms to form a theory. According to the context the terms vary from being far, general and pluralistic to name a few. The levels of abstraction of terms are at conceptual level, construct level and the concrete level. The terms can have two types of definitions, semantic definition and constitutive definition. A semantic definition describes the meaning of a term as compared to other terms. A constitutive definition describes a term with respect to its components. The terms should be clearly defined to classify the subject matter in to distinct and important categories. A well classified subject matter results in a good theory and a good theory results in a well classified subject matter. But one should not aim for exactness in the terms as it may result in dogmatic attitude. Hence a certain level of ambiguity and generality is needed when defining the terms. Further propositions are described in detail to express the relationships among the terms.
Justifying the Theory (Inductive Reasoning): Theories can be justified in two ways, the first is by testing their empirical fit by inductive reasoning and the second by rhetorical arguments of logical validity, credibility and persuasiveness. Inductive arguments provide more knowledge than premises and make a source for a new knowledge. If a hypothesis is not proved wrong after multiple comparisons and testing with alternative theories/methods then it is considered to be very credible. Even though it might not have been logically proved or deduced to be true. The more the number of tests, the more the credibility it gains. A theory should be tested for validity, truth and persuasiveness. The criteria to evaluate a theory are that it should be simple, general and accurate. It cannot be all three at the same time and hence a compromise should be made.
Three Key Notes:
1. Theory creation is collecting ideas from different scattered sources and not relying on a single idea from a single source.
2. A strong classification of the trial thoughts is required. Engaging people from different perspectives helps to come up with heterogeneous trials.
3. Only when a theory stands the test of time by going through trials and is not proved to be incorrect, its credibility can be ensured.
5: Variance and Process Models
May 18, 2009 Monday
This chapter introduces variance and process models. For a theory to be tested and observed for its overall effectiveness, it needs to be transformed in to an operational research model. Model and theory are not the same. To examine a theory, it is the model that is really tested. Models are partial representation of theory. Models consist of the instruments, procedures, assumptions and manipulations that are used to apply scientific methods of observations and analysis. Models are not just operational versions of theory. They include instrumental assumptions and practices not present in the theory. Hence they are autonomous and act as mediators/bridges between the theory and the data. A research model links theory and data in terms of function, representation, and learning. Variance and Process models are two different approaches for this purpose.
The two crucial research questions for which variance and process models are used are:
•What are the antecedents or consequences of the issue? (Variance Model)
•How the issue emerges, develops, grows or terminates over time? (Process Model)
These two questions need different methodologies, assumptions and epistemology. The variance model is outcome driven where as process model is an event driven explanation of input factors. The majority of research till date has been focused on variance model. However there has been a growing interest in the process model.
Three basic steps have been suggested for designing and conducting social science study. The steps are as following:
1. Understand the research question and then select an appropriate methodology.
2. Know the assumptions, strengths and limitations of the two models selected.
3. Assess the variance and process models in their terms not in each others terms.
It is very important to notice that the two models do not conflict with each other. They rather complement each other. The two types of explanations for these epistemologies are; outcome driven and event driven explanations. The outcome driven explanations are built backward. They are traced from the observed outcome back to the related significant events. In contrast the event driven explanations are built forward. They are traced from the observed event to the outcome. Not making explicit distinction between these two explanations may end getting the researcher in trouble. Hence it is very important to clearly define these two. The change in terms of relationships among the independent variables and dependent variables is explained by the variance model. Whereas process model explains how the sequence of events lead to come outcome. This can also be explained in terms of ‘Content’ and ‘Process’ of change. Content deals with what changes and process deals with how it changes. Content deals with antecedents and consequences where as process deals with sequence of events over time.
Variance Model: The assumptions in the variance model are discussed briefly. The assumptions are: Fixed entities with varying attributes, explanations based on efficient causality, generality depends on uniformity across contexts, time ordering among independent variables in immaterial, emphasis on immediate causation and attributes have a single meaning over time.
Process Model: The assumptions in the process model are: Entities participate in events and may change over time, explanations based on final, formal and efficient causality, generality depends on versatility across cases, time ordering of independent events is critical, explanations are layered and incorporate both immediate and distal causation, and entities, attributes, events may change in meaning over time.
Three Key Notes:
1. For a theory to be tested and observed for its overall effectiveness, it is the model that is really tested.
2. Variance and Process model are two approaches which answer what and how questions when evaluating a theory.
3. Variance model deals with what the outcome is and process model deals with how the events that result in the outcome take place.
May 18, 2009 Monday
This chapter introduces variance and process models. For a theory to be tested and observed for its overall effectiveness, it needs to be transformed in to an operational research model. Model and theory are not the same. To examine a theory, it is the model that is really tested. Models are partial representation of theory. Models consist of the instruments, procedures, assumptions and manipulations that are used to apply scientific methods of observations and analysis. Models are not just operational versions of theory. They include instrumental assumptions and practices not present in the theory. Hence they are autonomous and act as mediators/bridges between the theory and the data. A research model links theory and data in terms of function, representation, and learning. Variance and Process models are two different approaches for this purpose.
The two crucial research questions for which variance and process models are used are:
•What are the antecedents or consequences of the issue? (Variance Model)
•How the issue emerges, develops, grows or terminates over time? (Process Model)
These two questions need different methodologies, assumptions and epistemology. The variance model is outcome driven where as process model is an event driven explanation of input factors. The majority of research till date has been focused on variance model. However there has been a growing interest in the process model.
Three basic steps have been suggested for designing and conducting social science study. The steps are as following:
1. Understand the research question and then select an appropriate methodology.
2. Know the assumptions, strengths and limitations of the two models selected.
3. Assess the variance and process models in their terms not in each others terms.
It is very important to notice that the two models do not conflict with each other. They rather complement each other. The two types of explanations for these epistemologies are; outcome driven and event driven explanations. The outcome driven explanations are built backward. They are traced from the observed outcome back to the related significant events. In contrast the event driven explanations are built forward. They are traced from the observed event to the outcome. Not making explicit distinction between these two explanations may end getting the researcher in trouble. Hence it is very important to clearly define these two. The change in terms of relationships among the independent variables and dependent variables is explained by the variance model. Whereas process model explains how the sequence of events lead to come outcome. This can also be explained in terms of ‘Content’ and ‘Process’ of change. Content deals with what changes and process deals with how it changes. Content deals with antecedents and consequences where as process deals with sequence of events over time.
Variance Model: The assumptions in the variance model are discussed briefly. The assumptions are: Fixed entities with varying attributes, explanations based on efficient causality, generality depends on uniformity across contexts, time ordering among independent variables in immaterial, emphasis on immediate causation and attributes have a single meaning over time.
Process Model: The assumptions in the process model are: Entities participate in events and may change over time, explanations based on final, formal and efficient causality, generality depends on versatility across cases, time ordering of independent events is critical, explanations are layered and incorporate both immediate and distal causation, and entities, attributes, events may change in meaning over time.
Three Key Notes:
1. For a theory to be tested and observed for its overall effectiveness, it is the model that is really tested.
2. Variance and Process model are two approaches which answer what and how questions when evaluating a theory.
3. Variance model deals with what the outcome is and process model deals with how the events that result in the outcome take place.
6: Designing Variance Studies
May 25, 2009 Monday
The task of a research design is to transform a theory in to an operational model. Variance modeling is the dominant type of social science research. A variance research model represents a theory as a causal relationship among variables. A causal conditional proposition consists of an if-then statement. The if-then statements are called propositions when the causes (if) and effects (then) are stated in abstract theoretical terms. When stated in concrete observable terms the if-then statements are called hypothesis.
The entities that are studied are the units of analysis. The ‘what’ or ‘who’ being studied are the units. The units could be individuals or organizations in the study. However the results of the research are not always accurate. It is because of the fallacies at the individual and organizational level. These can be categorized as individualistic and ecological fallacies. Individualistic fallacies occur when incorrect inferences are drawn about organization from the micro level data. The ecological fallacies occur when incorrect inferences are drawn about individuals from the macro level data. For example; all the employees of a fraudulent organization cannot be assumed to be corrupt. (Satyam Case).
The Causal model (if X then Y) and relationships are considered the heart of the variance studies. There are two types of views of causations, Essentialist and Probabilistic. The essentialist view believes that the independent variable X alone causes Y and is sufficient to describe the cause of Y. Probabilistic view in contrast does not believe in X being the sole cause. In addition to the control variables the researcher should also consider the possible moderating and mediating variables that may influence the cause and relationship at the time of formulating a causal hypothesis. The causal models are classified in to three designs.
a) Randomized Experiment: The treatment and alternative conditions are deliberately manipulated. The units in randomized experiment are randomly assigned.
b) Quasi Experiment: Survey research studies often employ the quasi experiments. The treatment and alternative conditions are produced by naturally occurring events and are not randomly assigned.
c) Non Experiment: There is usually no control group. The researcher does a comparative analysis of naturally occurring conditions or events.
Researchers conduct the research in localized and pluralistic settings and yet aim to come up with generalize the findings. They wish to draw causal generalizations to a broader scale. Two types of causal generalizations are construct validity and external validity. When the researcher has the model, it needs to be compared with the data being observed. Data analysis is performed for this purpose. Numerous iterations of the data analysis are required and engaging others greatly facilitates the process. Researchers should seek feedback from their colleagues, users and practitioners during the process.
Once the data analysis is done, the data should be validated. The four criteria to validate the data are: Statistical Conclusion Validity, Internal Validity, Construct Validity and External Validity.
Three Key Notes:
1. The causal model (if X then Y) is the key to variance studies
2. There are several ways the causal model can be employed. However it is always advisable to consider the mediating variables that influence the outcome.
3. Engaging the fellow researchers, users and practitioners in the data analysis and validation is the key for the engaged scholarship philosophy.
May 25, 2009 Monday
The task of a research design is to transform a theory in to an operational model. Variance modeling is the dominant type of social science research. A variance research model represents a theory as a causal relationship among variables. A causal conditional proposition consists of an if-then statement. The if-then statements are called propositions when the causes (if) and effects (then) are stated in abstract theoretical terms. When stated in concrete observable terms the if-then statements are called hypothesis.
The entities that are studied are the units of analysis. The ‘what’ or ‘who’ being studied are the units. The units could be individuals or organizations in the study. However the results of the research are not always accurate. It is because of the fallacies at the individual and organizational level. These can be categorized as individualistic and ecological fallacies. Individualistic fallacies occur when incorrect inferences are drawn about organization from the micro level data. The ecological fallacies occur when incorrect inferences are drawn about individuals from the macro level data. For example; all the employees of a fraudulent organization cannot be assumed to be corrupt. (Satyam Case).
The Causal model (if X then Y) and relationships are considered the heart of the variance studies. There are two types of views of causations, Essentialist and Probabilistic. The essentialist view believes that the independent variable X alone causes Y and is sufficient to describe the cause of Y. Probabilistic view in contrast does not believe in X being the sole cause. In addition to the control variables the researcher should also consider the possible moderating and mediating variables that may influence the cause and relationship at the time of formulating a causal hypothesis. The causal models are classified in to three designs.
a) Randomized Experiment: The treatment and alternative conditions are deliberately manipulated. The units in randomized experiment are randomly assigned.
b) Quasi Experiment: Survey research studies often employ the quasi experiments. The treatment and alternative conditions are produced by naturally occurring events and are not randomly assigned.
c) Non Experiment: There is usually no control group. The researcher does a comparative analysis of naturally occurring conditions or events.
Researchers conduct the research in localized and pluralistic settings and yet aim to come up with generalize the findings. They wish to draw causal generalizations to a broader scale. Two types of causal generalizations are construct validity and external validity. When the researcher has the model, it needs to be compared with the data being observed. Data analysis is performed for this purpose. Numerous iterations of the data analysis are required and engaging others greatly facilitates the process. Researchers should seek feedback from their colleagues, users and practitioners during the process.
Once the data analysis is done, the data should be validated. The four criteria to validate the data are: Statistical Conclusion Validity, Internal Validity, Construct Validity and External Validity.
Three Key Notes:
1. The causal model (if X then Y) is the key to variance studies
2. There are several ways the causal model can be employed. However it is always advisable to consider the mediating variables that influence the outcome.
3. Engaging the fellow researchers, users and practitioners in the data analysis and validation is the key for the engaged scholarship philosophy.
7: Designing Process Studies
June 1, 2009 Monday
Process studies deal with the study of how entities or things change over an extended period of time. The change is empirically determined by observing two or more factors on a set of dimensions over time and noticing the changes in the dimensions. If there is a noticeable difference then the change in the entity is acknowledged. The research question being asked is how the change occurred and answer to this question required a narrative description. The pattern of the events is observed to determine their cause and consequences. The generalization should be done in terms of narrative story or history.
There is no one fixed process theory. The ambiguity always exists and it is for this reason that the researcher’s repertoire of alternative models comes handy. Along with Scott Poole, the author proposes four theories of a Life cycle model, a Teleological model, a Dialectical model and an Evolution model. A single model or a theory for conducting research has its own advantages and disadvantages. On one hand it helps sharpening the focus and makes the implementation easier. It is also very helpful to operationalize the data. On the other hand, having two or more models make stronger inferences. The chances of hitting the dead end are considerably reduced in case the used model fails to deliver.
It is very important to have multiple perspectives or theories to study the organizational change processes. The organizational change processes can be very complex and one theory is not sufficient. Multiple complementary theories are needed to capture different aspects of the same process. It reduces the complexity and the different theories can be compared for their relative explanatory power. It is also very important for the researcher to determine in whose frame of reference he places himself. It is because it is very difficult for a researcher to assume an impartial and detached perspective to satisfy balanced representation of all the stakeholders.
The author then discusses three sources of temporal change which are:
Age: The age of the individual/individuals at the time of the measurement.
Cohort: The characteristics of the individuals being studied (born and went to school around the same time).
Transient: Temporary, immediate and non-cumulative factors that influence the outcome.
The sampling of the cases is of two types, Homogeneous and Heterogeneous. The homogeneous sampling is advantageous when the sequences are lengthy. On the other side, the heterogeneous samples provide a better opportunity to detect whether the sources of change are caused by temporal, cohort or transient factors. The sample size also plays a crucial role. The larger the sample size is the easier it is to generalize the results.
Then the process data is measured and analyzed the process data. The procedures in a typical longitudinal study include Survey questionnaires completed by the participants, Interviews with key managers and participants, direct observations of regularly scheduled meetings, a diary recording informal discussions with participants and documents and reports from news media and organizational archives.
A clear distinction should be made between incidents and events. The incidents are operational empirical observations where as the abstract concepts of coded sets of incidents. The author then discusses the quantitative and qualitative strategies for identifying events. The researcher moves from surface observations (description) towards a process theory (explanation). The explanation required a story and the stories are understood as process theories. The story should describe at least the progression or the sequence of events.
Three Key Notes:
1. Process study deals with the changes that occur over a period of time in an organization.
2. A researcher should always have multiple models/theories to study a problem and should decide which stakeholder is the focus of his research.
3. To generalize, the sample size of the research should be large enough and should take different perspectives.
June 1, 2009 Monday
Process studies deal with the study of how entities or things change over an extended period of time. The change is empirically determined by observing two or more factors on a set of dimensions over time and noticing the changes in the dimensions. If there is a noticeable difference then the change in the entity is acknowledged. The research question being asked is how the change occurred and answer to this question required a narrative description. The pattern of the events is observed to determine their cause and consequences. The generalization should be done in terms of narrative story or history.
There is no one fixed process theory. The ambiguity always exists and it is for this reason that the researcher’s repertoire of alternative models comes handy. Along with Scott Poole, the author proposes four theories of a Life cycle model, a Teleological model, a Dialectical model and an Evolution model. A single model or a theory for conducting research has its own advantages and disadvantages. On one hand it helps sharpening the focus and makes the implementation easier. It is also very helpful to operationalize the data. On the other hand, having two or more models make stronger inferences. The chances of hitting the dead end are considerably reduced in case the used model fails to deliver.
It is very important to have multiple perspectives or theories to study the organizational change processes. The organizational change processes can be very complex and one theory is not sufficient. Multiple complementary theories are needed to capture different aspects of the same process. It reduces the complexity and the different theories can be compared for their relative explanatory power. It is also very important for the researcher to determine in whose frame of reference he places himself. It is because it is very difficult for a researcher to assume an impartial and detached perspective to satisfy balanced representation of all the stakeholders.
The author then discusses three sources of temporal change which are:
Age: The age of the individual/individuals at the time of the measurement.
Cohort: The characteristics of the individuals being studied (born and went to school around the same time).
Transient: Temporary, immediate and non-cumulative factors that influence the outcome.
The sampling of the cases is of two types, Homogeneous and Heterogeneous. The homogeneous sampling is advantageous when the sequences are lengthy. On the other side, the heterogeneous samples provide a better opportunity to detect whether the sources of change are caused by temporal, cohort or transient factors. The sample size also plays a crucial role. The larger the sample size is the easier it is to generalize the results.
Then the process data is measured and analyzed the process data. The procedures in a typical longitudinal study include Survey questionnaires completed by the participants, Interviews with key managers and participants, direct observations of regularly scheduled meetings, a diary recording informal discussions with participants and documents and reports from news media and organizational archives.
A clear distinction should be made between incidents and events. The incidents are operational empirical observations where as the abstract concepts of coded sets of incidents. The author then discusses the quantitative and qualitative strategies for identifying events. The researcher moves from surface observations (description) towards a process theory (explanation). The explanation required a story and the stories are understood as process theories. The story should describe at least the progression or the sequence of events.
Three Key Notes:
1. Process study deals with the changes that occur over a period of time in an organization.
2. A researcher should always have multiple models/theories to study a problem and should decide which stakeholder is the focus of his research.
3. To generalize, the sample size of the research should be large enough and should take different perspectives.
8: Communicating and Using Research Knowledge
June 8, 2009 Monday
Publishing in scientific journals and presenting them in conferences is not the end of the process of communication of research findings. Such an approach entails a one way communication. There is ample evidence than the research knowledge is often not used or adopted as intended. Hence a more engaged relationship is required between a researcher and his audience to have an impact in advancing science and practice.
Often the practitioners fail to adopt the findings in research areas like medicine, management and social sciences. Most of the times they are not even aware of the academic literature directly related to their field of practice. It can be attributed to researchers not playing the role of an action-interventionist. Researchers should work with in organizations and participate in their self design activities to better implement their findings. Therefore, success of a research work done is not about mere publishing a paper. Publishing a paper is one thing and actively implementing is another thing. The research knowledge should be actionable enough to be implemented and the relationship between the academic knowledge and practical relevance evolves with time.
The communication boundary between the researchers and practitioners is quite complex. This complexity is determined by the difference, dependence and novelty of the domain specific knowledge. Difference refers to the unique amount of knowledge which pertains to the experience and the level of the individual knowledge of the people on the both sides of the communication boundary. Dependence refers to the extent that the people need to take each others views in to account and the information they need to share to successfully meet their goals. Novelty refers to the lack of common knowledge due to different cultures or contexts between the people or the new domain specific knowledge.
The main issue covering this chapter is the effective transfer of knowledge. Sometimes for the knowledge to be understood by the audience, it is filtered and simplified resulting in the loss of the richness of its content because of which the audience does not consider to be worthy of consideration. The research findings are more likely to be accepted only when they have an advantage over the status quo and approved by the leading members of the adopting community. The research findings also need to be rhetorically persuasive to be accepted by the audience. The listeners role is relatively silent hence it is difficult to know how the listener understand and interprets the study findings differently. So unless the authors/researchers engage in closer conversation they are not able to discover it.
One of the sources of this interpretive difference between the researchers and their audience are the general statistical findings and the specific individual contexts in which they may apply. Another common source is the different kind of explanations of research findings that are useful. The purpose of an explanation is not to remove a doubt whether or not a claim is true but to gain a deep understanding of what it really means.
In the end the author discusses the pragmatic and political transformations of knowledge. It is not just the matter of conducting research and study of the findings, but it is about negotiating and making trade offs between the stakeholders and the research findings. The negotiation of conflicting interests entails risks for all the parties at the boundary. Hence the engaged scholarship calls for repeated engagement of stakeholders in all the activities of the research process: problem formulation, theory building, research design and problem solving.
Three Key Notes:
1. The researcher needs to engage more closely with his audience to know whether they interpret his findings the way he intends to.
2.The researcher’s contribution is enhanced and his findings have a better impact when they have an advantage over the status quo and supported by the leading members of the domain.
3. Negotiation of the interests of the key stake holders is crucial for engaged scholarship and hence they should be repeatedly engaged through all the activities of the research process.
June 8, 2009 Monday
Publishing in scientific journals and presenting them in conferences is not the end of the process of communication of research findings. Such an approach entails a one way communication. There is ample evidence than the research knowledge is often not used or adopted as intended. Hence a more engaged relationship is required between a researcher and his audience to have an impact in advancing science and practice.
Often the practitioners fail to adopt the findings in research areas like medicine, management and social sciences. Most of the times they are not even aware of the academic literature directly related to their field of practice. It can be attributed to researchers not playing the role of an action-interventionist. Researchers should work with in organizations and participate in their self design activities to better implement their findings. Therefore, success of a research work done is not about mere publishing a paper. Publishing a paper is one thing and actively implementing is another thing. The research knowledge should be actionable enough to be implemented and the relationship between the academic knowledge and practical relevance evolves with time.
The communication boundary between the researchers and practitioners is quite complex. This complexity is determined by the difference, dependence and novelty of the domain specific knowledge. Difference refers to the unique amount of knowledge which pertains to the experience and the level of the individual knowledge of the people on the both sides of the communication boundary. Dependence refers to the extent that the people need to take each others views in to account and the information they need to share to successfully meet their goals. Novelty refers to the lack of common knowledge due to different cultures or contexts between the people or the new domain specific knowledge.
The main issue covering this chapter is the effective transfer of knowledge. Sometimes for the knowledge to be understood by the audience, it is filtered and simplified resulting in the loss of the richness of its content because of which the audience does not consider to be worthy of consideration. The research findings are more likely to be accepted only when they have an advantage over the status quo and approved by the leading members of the adopting community. The research findings also need to be rhetorically persuasive to be accepted by the audience. The listeners role is relatively silent hence it is difficult to know how the listener understand and interprets the study findings differently. So unless the authors/researchers engage in closer conversation they are not able to discover it.
One of the sources of this interpretive difference between the researchers and their audience are the general statistical findings and the specific individual contexts in which they may apply. Another common source is the different kind of explanations of research findings that are useful. The purpose of an explanation is not to remove a doubt whether or not a claim is true but to gain a deep understanding of what it really means.
In the end the author discusses the pragmatic and political transformations of knowledge. It is not just the matter of conducting research and study of the findings, but it is about negotiating and making trade offs between the stakeholders and the research findings. The negotiation of conflicting interests entails risks for all the parties at the boundary. Hence the engaged scholarship calls for repeated engagement of stakeholders in all the activities of the research process: problem formulation, theory building, research design and problem solving.
Three Key Notes:
1. The researcher needs to engage more closely with his audience to know whether they interpret his findings the way he intends to.
2.The researcher’s contribution is enhanced and his findings have a better impact when they have an advantage over the status quo and supported by the leading members of the domain.
3. Negotiation of the interests of the key stake holders is crucial for engaged scholarship and hence they should be repeatedly engaged through all the activities of the research process.
9: Practicing Engaged Scholarship
June 9, 2009 Monday
This chapter begins with the example of Lake Wobegon University and addresses the problem of knowledge transfer. Holding it responsible for the theory practice gap, it concludes with the need for a deeper form of research engaging academicians and practitioners to produce knowledge worthy of science and practice. The need for a pluralistic organization is emphasized where competing models are tolerated and negotiated to achieve constructive ends for all parties. The author supports the argument that research is a collective achievement not a solitary exercise. Scholarship that is engaged with and not engaged for the practice advances the basic scientific knowledge. Numerous iterative passes through all four activities of problem formulation, theory building, research design and problem solving are required. It is also very important to maintain a balance between all of them or else some activities remain incomplete while others get over-engineered. For example in social sciences much emphasis is given to research design where as other three activities are relatively ignored.
Engaged scholarship can have alternative forms depending on the context and settings. The stakeholders should be engaged in all forms of engaged scholarship to give it a meaningful purpose. The complexity of the study largely influences which among the several forms is used. The author categorically suggests that “It is all about the problem!! It is the research question about the problem which drives the process of Engaged Scholarship”. The perspective of the researcher can be of either as an insider or an outsider. Research from outside generates extensive scientific knowledge versus the research from inside which generates intensive practical knowledge. It is the linking of the outside and inside research knowledge that helps reduce the theory-practice gap. The four types of Engaged Scholarship discussed are as following:
Informed Basic Research: It adopts the traditional form of social science. The academic researcher adopts the perspective of a detached outsider. He solicits advice and feedback from the informants and the key stakeholders who only act as advisors. The researcher controls all the activities including the final report.
Collaborative Research: The research question being asked takes the primary importance in collaborative research. The researchers and stakeholders have equal share of power. The team is composed of co-investigators from different disciplines and practices of academia and the industry. Practitioners in industry undergoing change find research results much more useful when they were jointly interpreted by practitioners and researchers. The researchers are even advised to become a part of the organizations self-design activities to promote usefulness of their work.
Design/Policy Evaluation Research: This form of research seeks evidence based knowledge of the efficacy or relative success of alternative solutions of the problems. Such research focuses on pragmatic questions such as “Will it work?” or “Will it perform better?” The objective is to develop knowledge which is applicable to professionals to design solutions to their field problems. Design science does not limit itself to understanding but it also it explains the advantages and disadvantages of alternative theory. The methods used to evaluation researchers should be very close to applying accepted scientific methods. These methods include mathematical simulation modeling, case studies, controlled experiments and nature field experiments.
Action/Intervention Research: This methodology deals with both engaging and intervening in the client’s social setting. The foundation of this process is client’s participation in the problem solving using systematic methods of data collection, feedback, reflection and action. It begins by diagnosing the problem or a need of the client. The action researchers play highly visible and productive role of a change agent in helping client solve the problem.
In practice there are many variations and overlaps among the four forms discussed above. One form of engaged scholarship may transition in to other. The author then discusses the challenges involved. The challenges discussed are of triangulation, negotiation, reflexivity and spending time in research sites. Triangulation deals with use of multiple methods and sources of information in a study. Negotiation deals with multiple meeting with the client. Finally the researcher should spend as much time he can in clients setting involving his stakeholders to better implement his research findings and solutions.
Key Points:
1. Letting go the initial conceptions and remaining open to new ideas from field observations is a key to engaged scholarship.
2. Engagement does not necessarily mean consensus among all. It occurs through negotiations between conflicting interests and stakeholders.
3. It is always about the question being studied. It is the research question about the problem domain that drives the process of engaged scholarship.
June 9, 2009 Monday
This chapter begins with the example of Lake Wobegon University and addresses the problem of knowledge transfer. Holding it responsible for the theory practice gap, it concludes with the need for a deeper form of research engaging academicians and practitioners to produce knowledge worthy of science and practice. The need for a pluralistic organization is emphasized where competing models are tolerated and negotiated to achieve constructive ends for all parties. The author supports the argument that research is a collective achievement not a solitary exercise. Scholarship that is engaged with and not engaged for the practice advances the basic scientific knowledge. Numerous iterative passes through all four activities of problem formulation, theory building, research design and problem solving are required. It is also very important to maintain a balance between all of them or else some activities remain incomplete while others get over-engineered. For example in social sciences much emphasis is given to research design where as other three activities are relatively ignored.
Engaged scholarship can have alternative forms depending on the context and settings. The stakeholders should be engaged in all forms of engaged scholarship to give it a meaningful purpose. The complexity of the study largely influences which among the several forms is used. The author categorically suggests that “It is all about the problem!! It is the research question about the problem which drives the process of Engaged Scholarship”. The perspective of the researcher can be of either as an insider or an outsider. Research from outside generates extensive scientific knowledge versus the research from inside which generates intensive practical knowledge. It is the linking of the outside and inside research knowledge that helps reduce the theory-practice gap. The four types of Engaged Scholarship discussed are as following:
Informed Basic Research: It adopts the traditional form of social science. The academic researcher adopts the perspective of a detached outsider. He solicits advice and feedback from the informants and the key stakeholders who only act as advisors. The researcher controls all the activities including the final report.
Collaborative Research: The research question being asked takes the primary importance in collaborative research. The researchers and stakeholders have equal share of power. The team is composed of co-investigators from different disciplines and practices of academia and the industry. Practitioners in industry undergoing change find research results much more useful when they were jointly interpreted by practitioners and researchers. The researchers are even advised to become a part of the organizations self-design activities to promote usefulness of their work.
Design/Policy Evaluation Research: This form of research seeks evidence based knowledge of the efficacy or relative success of alternative solutions of the problems. Such research focuses on pragmatic questions such as “Will it work?” or “Will it perform better?” The objective is to develop knowledge which is applicable to professionals to design solutions to their field problems. Design science does not limit itself to understanding but it also it explains the advantages and disadvantages of alternative theory. The methods used to evaluation researchers should be very close to applying accepted scientific methods. These methods include mathematical simulation modeling, case studies, controlled experiments and nature field experiments.
Action/Intervention Research: This methodology deals with both engaging and intervening in the client’s social setting. The foundation of this process is client’s participation in the problem solving using systematic methods of data collection, feedback, reflection and action. It begins by diagnosing the problem or a need of the client. The action researchers play highly visible and productive role of a change agent in helping client solve the problem.
In practice there are many variations and overlaps among the four forms discussed above. One form of engaged scholarship may transition in to other. The author then discusses the challenges involved. The challenges discussed are of triangulation, negotiation, reflexivity and spending time in research sites. Triangulation deals with use of multiple methods and sources of information in a study. Negotiation deals with multiple meeting with the client. Finally the researcher should spend as much time he can in clients setting involving his stakeholders to better implement his research findings and solutions.
Key Points:
1. Letting go the initial conceptions and remaining open to new ideas from field observations is a key to engaged scholarship.
2. Engagement does not necessarily mean consensus among all. It occurs through negotiations between conflicting interests and stakeholders.
3. It is always about the question being studied. It is the research question about the problem domain that drives the process of engaged scholarship.
SUMMARY: COLLECTION OF MY 27 KEY POINTS FROM ALL THE CHAPTERS
1. Research in itself is meaningful only if it is a) Relevant in practical use b) Helps advance the scientific knowledge.
2. Engaged Scholarship deals with involving all the concerned parties which could be: a) Other researches with possible conflicting views. b) Stakeholders. c) Practitioners.
3. No researcher is individually fully capable enough and no research is complete in itself. It is only a generalized phenomenon of a small complex problem that exists in the universe. The universe is too complex to be understood in entirety.
4. The criterion for truth is its standing the test of the time apart from the success of the application.
5. Science is an error correction process. It develops with time and progresses towards closer approximation of reality.
6. The impact of this chapter on engaged scholarship: The complex the problem is, the more is the need for engagement of different scholars with diverse perspectives. Such engagement may even produce different and contradicting results but such results should not be denied altogether. They only represent a pluralistic view. Only the models that better fit the problems are eventually selected.
7. It is very important to know at the very first stage of the formulation problem that who will benefit from the research and how it will help advance the knowledge.
8. The solution of a particular problem being addressed should be refined to a particular case to solve the problem for a client.
9. Eventually the researcher should take away the minute details to come up with a generalized theory to address the phenomenon.
10. Theory creation is collecting ideas from different scattered sources and not relying on a single idea from a single source.
11. A strong classification of the trial thoughts is required. Engaging people from different perspectives helps to come up with heterogeneous trials.
12. Only when a theory stands the test of time by going through trials and is not proved to be incorrect, its credibility can be ensured.
13. For a theory to be tested and observed for its overall effectiveness, it is the model that is really tested.
14. Variance and Process model are two approaches which answer what and how questions when evaluating a theory.
15. Variance model deals with what the outcome is and process model deals with how the events that result in the outcome take place.
16. The causal model (if X then Y) is the key to variance studies
17. There are several ways the causal model can be employed. However it is always advisable to consider the mediating variables that influence the outcome.
18. Engaging the fellow researchers, users and practitioners in the data analysis and validation is the key for the engaged scholarship philosophy.
19. Process study deals with the changes that occur over a period of time in an organization.
20. A researcher should always have multiple models/theories to study a problem and should decide which stakeholder is the focus of his research.
21. To generalize, the sample size of the research should be large enough and should take different perspectives.
22. The researcher needs to engage more closely with his audience to know whether they interpret his findings the way he intends to.
23.The researcher’s contribution is enhanced and his findings have a better impact when they have an advantage over the status quo and supported by the leading members of the domain.
24. Negotiation of the interests of the key stake holders is crucial for engaged scholarship and hence they should be repeatedly engaged through all the activities of the research process.
25. Letting go the initial conceptions and remaining open to new ideas from field observations is a key to engaged scholarship.
26. Engagement does not necessarily mean consensus among all. It occurs through negotiations between conflicting interests and stakeholders.
27. It is always about the question being studied. It is the research question about the problem domain that drives the process of engaged scholarship.
1. Research in itself is meaningful only if it is a) Relevant in practical use b) Helps advance the scientific knowledge.
2. Engaged Scholarship deals with involving all the concerned parties which could be: a) Other researches with possible conflicting views. b) Stakeholders. c) Practitioners.
3. No researcher is individually fully capable enough and no research is complete in itself. It is only a generalized phenomenon of a small complex problem that exists in the universe. The universe is too complex to be understood in entirety.
4. The criterion for truth is its standing the test of the time apart from the success of the application.
5. Science is an error correction process. It develops with time and progresses towards closer approximation of reality.
6. The impact of this chapter on engaged scholarship: The complex the problem is, the more is the need for engagement of different scholars with diverse perspectives. Such engagement may even produce different and contradicting results but such results should not be denied altogether. They only represent a pluralistic view. Only the models that better fit the problems are eventually selected.
7. It is very important to know at the very first stage of the formulation problem that who will benefit from the research and how it will help advance the knowledge.
8. The solution of a particular problem being addressed should be refined to a particular case to solve the problem for a client.
9. Eventually the researcher should take away the minute details to come up with a generalized theory to address the phenomenon.
10. Theory creation is collecting ideas from different scattered sources and not relying on a single idea from a single source.
11. A strong classification of the trial thoughts is required. Engaging people from different perspectives helps to come up with heterogeneous trials.
12. Only when a theory stands the test of time by going through trials and is not proved to be incorrect, its credibility can be ensured.
13. For a theory to be tested and observed for its overall effectiveness, it is the model that is really tested.
14. Variance and Process model are two approaches which answer what and how questions when evaluating a theory.
15. Variance model deals with what the outcome is and process model deals with how the events that result in the outcome take place.
16. The causal model (if X then Y) is the key to variance studies
17. There are several ways the causal model can be employed. However it is always advisable to consider the mediating variables that influence the outcome.
18. Engaging the fellow researchers, users and practitioners in the data analysis and validation is the key for the engaged scholarship philosophy.
19. Process study deals with the changes that occur over a period of time in an organization.
20. A researcher should always have multiple models/theories to study a problem and should decide which stakeholder is the focus of his research.
21. To generalize, the sample size of the research should be large enough and should take different perspectives.
22. The researcher needs to engage more closely with his audience to know whether they interpret his findings the way he intends to.
23.The researcher’s contribution is enhanced and his findings have a better impact when they have an advantage over the status quo and supported by the leading members of the domain.
24. Negotiation of the interests of the key stake holders is crucial for engaged scholarship and hence they should be repeatedly engaged through all the activities of the research process.
25. Letting go the initial conceptions and remaining open to new ideas from field observations is a key to engaged scholarship.
26. Engagement does not necessarily mean consensus among all. It occurs through negotiations between conflicting interests and stakeholders.
27. It is always about the question being studied. It is the research question about the problem domain that drives the process of engaged scholarship.