Introduction to Management Research
This version: 26.04.2013 (includes Assignment Questions for Session 3)
Credits
This syllabus to a very large degree rests on Joel Baum’s PhD course “Research Methods in Strategic
Management” which he has taught very successfully at the Rotman School of Management at the University of
Toronto. I have tailored it to our context, and slightly extended it to reflect some additional questions and
recent refinements which I personally consider an essential part of the fundamentals of management research.
General information
Instructor:
Contact:
Course time:
Location:
Prof. Dr. Oliver Alexy
Room 2516 (Building 0505, Luisenstr.), Ext. 25741, [email protected]
Wednesdays, 9:30am-12:30pm; see “Preliminary schedule”
Mainly Z538 or 0544; see “Preliminary schedule”
Course aims
What this course is
In this course, we want to give students an understanding what management research actually is. By glancing
at its roots in the philosophy of science and looking at how it has developed since, students will be educated
about essential concepts underlying all of management research, such as “theory,” “observation,” “falsification,”
and so on. In doing so, we want to introduce PhD students to the logic and rules underlying management
research. While we welcome students from all disciplines of business administration, we will focus
largely on those subfields that are represented by the Academy of Management.
What this course is not
- A pure Philosophy of Science class – Prof. Moog offers a fantastic course on this topic, we will only be
touching upon some very basics
- A pure Methods course – this class will only give you a basic understanding of what generic
approaches to research exist (quantitative, qualitative, etc.) exist and which conditions determine which
one is the better, or the only choice. For specific research methods classes, we recommend you attend
introductory classes on qualitative research (Prof. Belz) or quantitative research (several, also at LMU)
Course objectives
Knowledge Objectives
In this course, we strive to familiarize you with essential concepts underlying all of management research, many
of which originate from the philosophy of science. Knowing these concepts is an essential precondition to
1
successfully embark on the journey that is your PhD thesis, and possibly even a career in academia.
Skills Objectives
• Improve diagnostic and analytical skills
• Enhance verbal skills via class and group discussions
• Build up critical thinking and interpretation skills
Learning Objectives
At the end of this course, students will be able to demonstrate understanding, critical assessment and
application of the following:
• Generic design of a research question or PhD proposal
• Their own, as well as others’ research method and design choice
• Fundamentals of research methods so as to be able to successfully participate in more specialized
methods courses
• Theory so as to be able to successfully participate in more advanced courses on theory-building or
theories in specific subfields of management
Preliminary schedule
Please see “Course Outline” for details on each session’s content and required preparations.
Session
Date
Room
Topic
1
17.04.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Theory and observation
2
24.04.
0544 (0505.EG.544)
Induction, probability, and theory construction
3
08.05.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Fallibility, falsification, and coherence
4
15.05.
0544 (0505.EG.544)
Revolutionary change and rationality
5
22.05.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Relativism, feminism, and [… scientists]
6
29.05.
0544 (0505.EG.544)
Realism
7
05.06.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Research design
8
12.06.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Experimental design
9
19.06.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Presentations (see “Assessment”)
10
26.06.
2607, (0506.02.607)
Measurement and sampling (starts: 9:45am)
11
03.07.
0544 (0505.EG.544)
Survey research
12
10.07.
0544 (0505.EG.544)
Field research
13
24.07.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Archival research
14
31.07.
Z538 (0505.Z1.538Z)
Research programs/multi-method
Core readings
A plethora of literature exists on introductory research methods for management. We will connect to the
2
respective debate by drawing on two textbooks. You will find that used versions of the textbooks on Amazon
cost less than EUR20, for both books. Regarding the book by Couvalis, Prof. Moog may be able to suggest
other books to you which will have similar content and may even exist in German. Beyond that, we will draw on
academic articles and book chapters. We will be trying to provide all materials with the exception of the
textbooks to you in electronic format, or at least as paper copies.
• Couvalis, George. 1997. The Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity. Sage.
• Singleton, Royce A., Bruce C. Straits, and Margaret M. Straits 1993 (or newer). Approaches to Social
Research (2nd edition, or newer). Oxford University Press.
Course Procedures
Have Fun
Our challenge is to make sure that you learn about the fundamental importance of the philosophy of science as
a foundation to appreciate, understand and question any type of management research as well as to guide you
in your own PhD endeavors. While this topic may seem dusty you need to have at least some understanding of
it to do good research. To illustrate this point to you, we will do our best to make this course as applied as
possible and to design it in a way that can show direct benefits for your PhD. Thus, our goal is to enlarge your
toolset and sharpen the tools that you have as a researcher in your own projects as well as a reviewer of others’
work. Having these skills will make it easier for you to join any academic debate, in particular those outside
your area of specialization – who does not like talking about other people’s work? And of course, knowing that
you have the skills to tackle a research topic and making it ‘yours’ is great fun!
Prepare and Participate Actively
To make this class a success for everyone, we need you to prepare for class and participate in class. There is a
lot of material that we want to cover, and this material is (1) ordered consecutively (so you need the early
sessions to really get the later ones) and (2) the very foundation of anything else you will do in your PhD, such
as other classes offered by us. Thus, in order to get the most out of this course, we ask you to prepare for each
class, so that you will be capable of discussing the assigned readings. Note that for each session, we have
provided assignment questions to guide your preparation. From the second week onward, each reading will be
assigned to several “primary” reviewers, one of which will be chosen to critically review the reading and
comment on it. A second primary reviewer will be asked to provide additional commentary, either agreeing or
disagreeing with the first reviewer. The discussion will then be open to the class.
Notes are recommended in sufficient detail to enable your regular participation in the discussion. You are
encouraged to prepare for class with your colleagues, however, each member of the class should be fully
conversant in the material — expect to be called on in class. You should be able to outline the topic that
readings address, describe the core points of the reading and most importantly, offer your analysis of the
strengths and weaknesses of the reading’s central argument. For exemplar articles you should be able to
critically assess their effectiveness. If for some reason you are not prepared please let me know before the start
of class to save us both the embarrassment of my calling on you.
Give feedback
Your feedback – in class or in private – on any aspect of this course is welcome at any time. It can help make
this course an excellent experience for you and for us. We encourage you to contact us via Moodle, email and
3
we will respond as soon as possible. If you wish to see one of us in person, please let us know so that we can
prepare. Come prepared.
Assessment
There will be no mandatory assessment. Nonetheless, note that attendance and participation are mandatory,
and regular unexcused absence or ill preparation may lead you to being banned from the course.
Nonetheless, there exists the option for voluntary assessment. Specifically, students will have the opportunity to
use this course to develop, elaborate, or scrutinize their own research questions and understanding of the
academic literature as laid out below. These are also the tasks we assign to students who are not members of
the TUM Graduate School and need an assessment or even a grade to get credit for this course in their
respective PhD programs. If you want to take part in these assignments voluntarily, or in case you need to be
assessed or even graded, please let me know before the first session of class.
Course Assignments (80% of the course grade)
1. Progress Report 1: Problem Definition (2-3 pages, typed, double-spaced). Sketch a research problem
that interests you. Describe why, in your view, an understanding of this problem is relevant Management
scholars and practitioners. Due Session 2. 7.5% of course grade
2. Progress Report 2: Literature Search. Perform a quick literature search and develop a reading list of
articles and books that address your research problem. Format your reading list as a list of references
following the format used in the Academy of Management Journal. Due Session 4. 2.5% of course grade
3. Progress Report 3: Theory and Hypotheses (5-7 pages, typed, double-spaced). Discuss possible
theoretical perspectives that address your research problem. How will the answers to your research
problem add to knowledge in this area? Revise your research problem if you find that it has already been
addressed in previous research. Derive two or more empirically testable hypotheses that relate to your
research problem. How do these hypotheses contribute to knowledge in this area? Paper 2 should
incorporate the content of Paper 1. Due Session 8. 15% of course grade
4. Presentation and Critical Commentary Present Progress Report 3 (10-15 minutes) in class and prepare
(2-3 pages, typed, double-spaced) and present (5 minutes) critical, constructive commentaries for one or
two other students’ Progress Report 3s. Due Session 9. 10% of course grade; 5% of course grade
5. Final Report (10-15 pages, typed, double-spaced). Based on theory and hypotheses developed in
Progress Report 3, develop a research proposal for submission to a funding agency such as the DFG, or to
your PhD advisor. Revise your ideas based on comments you receive from reviewers. Your proposal should
include a detailed description of your research design, the data required to test your hypotheses, and
methods used to collect (and analyse) the data. What implications does your proposed research have for
future? Do you have a program of research in mind? If so, describe it. Due one week after Session 14.
40% of the course grade
Participation (20% of the course grade)
It is important to appreciate that every member of the class is a co-producer of the class discussion, listen
carefully to one another and attempt to build on or constructively critique prior comments. An effective
participant:
4
• Is a good listener
• Makes points relevant to the ongoing discussion
• Makes comments that add to our understanding of the reading or article
• Is willing to challenge ideas that are being expressed
• Integrates material from past classes, other courses
If you need to receive a grade for this course, I will ask each of the other students to submit a one-page
evaluation and grade out of 20, based on these five criteria, for you. These scores will be averaged with one
assigned by me to determine your 20% participation grade.
Course outline
Session 1. Theory and Observation
POS: Introduction, Theory and Observation (Chap. 1)
ASR: Introduction (Chap. 1), The Nature of Science (Chap. 2)
Discussion Questions:
1. Differentiate hypothesis, empirical generalization, law and theory.
2. What criteria can be used to judge the relative superiority of scientific theories?
3. Give an example of an empirical generalization that can explain but not predict.
4. What is the nature of the scientific process?
5. What are the three key principles underlying scientific inquiry?
6. Why do some social science researchers reject the positivist model of science?
Session 2. Induction, Probability, and Theory Construction (Report 1 due in class)
POS: Induction and Probability (Chap. 2)
ASR: The Logic of Scientific Reasoning (Chap. 3)
Davis, Murray. S. 1971. “That’s Interesting” Philosophy of Social Science, 1: 309-344.
Discussion questions:
1. Distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning.
2. What does it mean to logically formalize a theory? What purposes does this serve?
3. Develop one specific hypothesis related to your research problem.
4. How do you know that water is wet?
Session 3. Fallibility, Falsification, and Coherence
POS: Popper & Mills (Chap. 3)
Campbell, Donald T. 1974 “Evolutionary Epistemology.” In P.A. Schlipp (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Popper:
413-463. Open Court.
Lakatos, Imre. 1974 "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in I. Lakatos and
A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Science: 91-139. Cambridge U. Press.
Discussion questions:
1. What makes a theory scientific?
2. How does science progress?
5
3. How could you defend bogus science?
Session 4. Revolutionary Change and Rationality (Report 2 due in class)
POS: Kuhn & his rivals (Chap. 4)
Hull, David L. 1988. “Science as a Selection Process” Chap. 12 in Science as A Process: 432-476. University of
Chicago Press.
Discussion questions:
1. What is a paradigm? What are its elements?
2. What role do paradigms play for working researchers?
Session 5. Relativism, Feminism and the Psychology of the Scientist
POS: Relativism (Chap. 5) and Feminism (Chap. 6)
Greenwald, A.O., A. R. Pratkanis, M.R. Leippe, and M.H. Baumgardner 1986. "Under What Conditions Does
Theory Obstruct Research Progress?" Psychological Review, 93: 216-229.
Bargh, J. and T.L. Chartrand. 1999. "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being." American Psychologist, 44: 462479.
Discussion questions:
1. Is it true that there is no truth?
Session 6. Realism
POS: Realism (Chap. 7)
McKelvey, Bill. 1997. “Quasi-Natural Organization Science.” Organization Science: 8:351-380.
McKelvey, Bill. 1999. "Toward a Campbellian Realist Organization Science." In J. Baum and B. McKelvey (eds.)
Variations in organization science: In honor of D.T. Campbell: 383-411. Sage.
Discussion questions:
1. What is your philosophy of science?!
Session 7. Research Design
ASR: Elements of Research Design (Chap 4)
Edmondson, A.C. and McManus, S.E. (2007). Methodological Fit in Management Field Research. Academy of
Management Review 32(4), 1155-1179.
McGrath, J.E. (1982). “Dilemmatics.” In McGrath, J.E., Martin, J.M., Kulka, R.A. (Eds.) Judgment calls in
research: 69-102. Sage.
Discussion questions:
1. What are the basic choices in research design?
2. How does one go about making research design choices?
3. What are the implications of the choices that you make?
Session 8. Experimental Design (Moodle upload or 3 copies of Report 3 due in class)
6
ASR: Experimentation (Chap. 7) and Experimental Designs (Chap. 8)
Staw, Barry M. 1974. “Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of changing a major organizational reward: A
natural field experiment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29:742-751.
Lynne G. Zucker. 1977. "The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence." American Sociological Review,
42: 726-743.
Maciejovsky, B., Sutter, M., Budescu, D. V., & Bernau, P. 2013. Teams make you smarter: How exposure to
teams improves individual decisions in probability and reasoning tasks. Management Science, forthcoming.
Discussion questions:
1. What is the basic philosophy behind experimentation?
2. Distinguish between internal and external validity. How can you increase the external validity of an
experiment?
3. What are the four main parts of an experiment? What is the purpose of manipulation checks?
4. What is the different between an “impact” and a “judgment” experiment?
5. Describe ways in which demand characteristics and experimenter effects can influence the outcome of an
experiment. How can you minimize these biases?
6. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of field and natural versus lab experiments.
Session 9. Presentations and Commentaries
Note: To be submitted two days in advance via Moodle. If you want to participate in this session, please let me
know early on in the course (see “Assessment” for details”).
Session 10. Measurement and Sampling
ASR: Measurement (Chap. 5) and Sampling (Chap. 6)
Berk, Richard A. 1983. “An Introduction to Sample Selection Bias in Sociological Data.” American Sociological
Review, 48: 386-398.
Kalleberg, Arne L., Peter V. Marsden, Howard E. Aldrich, and James W. Cassell. 1990. “Comparing
organizational sampling frames.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 658-688.
McKelvey, Bill, and Howard E. Aldrich. 1983. "Populations, Natural Selection, and Applied Organizational
Science." Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:101-128.
Discussion questions:
1. In general, how important is sampling?
2. Is sampling important for experiments?
3. How do you choose among the various sampling designs?
4. Why do we want to “sample” organizations?
5. How should we “sample” in strategy and organization science?
Session 11. Survey Research
ASR: Survey Research (Chap. 9) and Survey Instrumentation (Chap. 10).
Krosnick, John A. 1999. “Survey Research.” Annual Reviews of Psychology, 50: 537-567.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald, Jeffrey Leiter, and Shealy Thompson. 1994. “Organizational survey nonresponse.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 439.457.
7
Useem, Michael, and Jerome Karabel. 1986. “Pathways to top corporate management.” American Sociological
Review, 51: 184-200.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects.
Journal of Management 12(4), 531-544.
Schaeffer, N.C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65-88.
Discussion questions:
1. What is the role of large-scale survey research?
2. Why do election polls often yield different findings?
3. What are the advantages of person-to-person interviewing? Telephone interviewing?
4. When and how does common-method bias arise? How may it be addressed?
Session 12. Field Research
ASR: Field Research (Chap. 11)
Webb, Eugene E., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Seacrest. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures:
Non-reactive Research in the Social Sciences: Chap 1, 1-34. Rand McNally.
Campbell, Donald T. 1975. "Degrees of freedom and the case study." Comparative Political Studies, 8: 178-193.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of Management Review,
14: 488-511.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.
Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 25-32.
Pentland, Brian T. 1992. “Organizing moves in software support hotlines.” Administrative Science Quarterly,
37:527-548.
Lee, Thomas W., Mitchell, Terence R., and Sablynski, Chris J., (1999). “Qualitative Research in Organizational
and Vocational Psychology, 1979 -1999.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.
Discussion questions:
1. How does a field researcher’s approach to design differ from that of the experimenter and survey
researcher?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of field research compared with experiments and surveys?
3. What is meant by “grounded” theory? How does this term apply to field research?
4. How can interviewing and document analysis complement field observations?
5. How do you analyze field data? How can the validity of field research findings be enhanced?
6. When is field research likely to pose ethical problems?
Session 13. Archival Research
ASR: Research Using Available Data (Chap. 12)
Webb, Eugene E., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Seacrest. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures:
Non-reactive Research in the Social Sciences: Chap. 2: 35-52. Rand McNally.
Baum, Joel A. C., and Stephen J. Mezias. 1992. “Localized competition and organizational failure in the
8
Manhattan hotel industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 580-604.
Fiol, C. Marlene. 1994. “Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations.” Organization Science, 5: 403-420.
Discussion questions:
1. How does research using available data differ from the other three basic approaches to social research?
2. What are the advantages of research using available data?
3. What special measurement and sampling problems are presented by archival research?
4. What are the four different forms of historical analysis?
5. What is content analysis? What are the steps involved? How do you quantify data in content analysis?
6. How do you evaluate available data?
Session 14. Research Programs/Multi-Method (Final Paper due next week, submit via Moodle)
ASR: Multiple Methods (Chap.13)
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Making fast strategic decision in high-velocity environments.” Academy of
Management Journal, 32:543-576.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Claudia B. Schoonhoven. 1990. “Organizational growth: Linking founding team,
strategy, environment and growth among U.S. semiconductor manufacturers.” Administrative Science Quarterly,
35:504-529.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science
Quarterly 24(4), 602-611.
Schoonhoven, Claudia B., Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, and Katherine Lyman. 1990. “Speeding new products to
market: Waiting time to first product introduction in new firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 177-207.
Discussion questions:
1. What is the principle of triangulation?
2. Explain how triangulation is typically applied in experiments, surveys, field studies, and research using
archival data.
3. Why is cumulativeness in research important?
9