researchmethodinqualitiveresearch管理學(xué)定性研究方法(已修改)
2025-03-07 01:20 本頁面
【正文】 Evaluating Qualitative Management Research: a Contingent Criteriology. Workshop Number 7 ESRC Workshops for Qualitative Research in Management Identification of training need ? Inappropriate assessment criteria is frequently applied to qualitative research. ? Concerns exist about how to assess qualitative research Aims ? To illustrate how peting philosophical perspectives underpin different ways of evaluating management research and different research agendas。 ? To illustrate the dangers of using particular evaluation criteria, constituted by particular philosophical conventions, to assess all management research。 ? To develop a contingent criteriology where appropriate evaluation criteria might be used which vary according to the philosophical assumptions informing the research. Objectives By the end of the session you should be able to: ? Outline the problems associated with criteriology with regard to peting processes of research evaluation。 ? Explain the constitutive and contingent relationship between philosophical assumptions and the development of different evaluation criteria。 ? Describe the key evaluation criteria relevant to four different approaches to management research. ? Historical dominance of quantitative methodology in anglophone countries。 ? Nevertheless qualitative management research has a long established pedigree。 ? Qualitative research management research characterized by: substantive diversity。 peting philosophical assumptions. ? Confusion arises when evaluation criteria constituted by particular philosophical conventions are universally applied to this heterogeneous field。 ? To avoid misappropriation there is a need for a contingent criteriology. M a na ge m e ntS c hoo l s ofTho ugh t:On t o l o g i c a lS t a t u s o f H u m a nB e h a v i o u r/a c t i o n :E p i s t e m o l o g y : On t o l o g i c a lS t a t u s o f S o c i a lR e a l i t y :M e t h o d o l o g i c a lC o m m i t m e n t s :K e y r e s e a r c hque s tion s :1 . P os i tiv i s m D e t e r m ine d Ob jec t iv is t R e a li s t Qu a n t it a t iv em e t h o d s t o e n a b lee r k lar e nW h a t a r e t h e c a u s e so f v a r iab le x ?2 . N e oe m pi r i c i s mM e a n ing f u l Ob jec t iv is t R e a li s t Qu a li t a t iv e m e t h o d st o e n a b le v e r s t e h e nH o w d o p e o p les u b jec t iv e lye x p e r ien c e t h ew o r ld?3 . C r i tic a lThe or yM e a n ing f u l S u b jec t iv is t R e a li s t Qu a li t a t iv e m e t h o d st o e n a b le as t r u c t u r a lp h e n o m e n o log yH o w d o p e o p les u b jec t iv e lye x p e r ien c e t h ew o r ld a n d h o w c a nt h e y f r e e t h e m s e lv e sf r o m d o m ina t ion ?4 . P os t m ode r ni s mD is c u r s iv e S u b jec t iv is t S u b jec t iv is t Qu a li t a t iv e m e t h o d st o e n a b led e c o n s t r u c t ionH o w a n d w h y a r ep a r t ic u lar d is c o u r s e sb e ing v o ic e d w h il eo t h e r s a r e n 抰 ?Four Key Approaches to Management Research: Knowledge constituting assumptions (1). Positivism Popper’s modified positivist methodology emphasizes objectivity and unbiased data collection in order to test hypotheses against an accessible independent social reality in order to protect against “fanciful theorizing in management research” (Donaldson, 1996: 164). Hence 4 key evaluation criteria: ? Internal validity whether what are interpreted as the “causes” produce the “effects” in a given piece of research necessitates creating, or simulating, conditions of closure which allow empirical testing。 Consti
環(huán)評(píng)公示相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1