Colorado College Social Entrepreneurship Discussion Please complete all parts, do not commit if you are not going to complete the part. DISSERTATION: Soci

Colorado College Social Entrepreneurship Discussion Please complete all parts, do not commit if you are not going to complete the part.

DISSERTATION: Social entrepreneurship

Part 1 300-400 words

Leedy and Ormrod discuss the nature and tools of research along with practical applications. Considering an issue or problem that you might want to study, focus your discussion on the practical applications, along with the associated strategies of inquiry.

Focus your discussion on the following:

What is your practical application domain?
Explain how this view could be used in designing a study for your selected research interest.
Speculate whether this study might be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research.

Part 2 300-400 words

post a response to the following considering your personal dissertation research problem area.

Briefly describe the problem being studied by your research and the stated purpose of the research.
Include 1-2 key takeaway points from this assignment and how 1 of these will be integrated into your continued doctoral study efforts

Part 3 300-400 words

Using the online library, read the following article:

Feldman, D. C. (2004). What are we talking about when we talk about theory? Journal of Management, 30(5), 565–567. Doctoral Library-SAGE. http://jom.sagepub.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/content/30/5/565.full.pdf+html

Considering the article and also your text readings, explain the role that theory plays in the research process.

Focus your discussion on the following:

Briefly explain your understanding about the role that theory plays in the research process.
What possible theoretical areas are you considering for the foundations of your own selected problem area for doctoral research?

Part 4 300-400 words

Consider how the theoretical topics could have applicability for your own research problem or issue.

Information Systems: Weigel, F. K., Hazen, B. T., Cegielski, C. G., & Hall, D. J. (2014). Diffusion of innovations and the theory of planned behavior in information systems research: A metaanalysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34, 619–636. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c7f/d8a6862d3ad9bb06e40de6ff067b5cb865c9.pdf?_ga=2.202617873.1231611503.1547836684-219825567.1543371519

Include a description of the theoretical topic, along with associated definitions relevant to the theoretical/conceptual area.
Explain how you could use these theoretical/conceptual ideas or theories to narrow the focus of your selected research problem area.

Part 5

Choose 1 of the following articles that you want to use for your first paper, the Research Article Review assignment. The articles are available in the CTU online Library.

Ioannou, A., & Hannafin, R. (2008). Deficiencies of course management systems: Do students care? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 415–425. Academic Search Premier (do not include the question mark when searching for this title) (article is attached part 5)

Download the full-text article through the library’s electronic databases, and carefully read the article, considering the following criteria. Prepare a paper using a short-answer format. For each of the criteria, write 1–2 narrative paragraphs:
What was the issue or problem that was explained by the researchers?
What was the stated purpose for their research?
What was the theoretical (concept or construct) focus or topic, and how were the concepts or constructs defined?
What research approach did the authors take (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), and why was that approach appropriate for the researchers’ stated purpose?
What were the conclusions of the study?
What were the recommendations for future research?
Be sure to address the following:
The expected length is 3–6 pages (not including cover page or reference list).
Include the citation of the article you selected from the reference list.
No abstract, introduction, or summary is required for the paper.

Part 6 300-400 words

Choose a single theory that you believe has applicability to your dissertation.
Locate scholarly literature that explains the theory including definitions of the key concepts/variables within that theory.
Also locate a scholarly journal article that tested aspects of that theory within the reported study.
In your post include:
The name and author of the theory;
Description of the theory including definitions of the concepts/variables.
Report briefly on the findings associated with the theory from your selected research study. Cite your sources including the journal article reporting the research you selected.
Include 1-2 key takeaway points from this assignment and how 1 of these will be integrated into your continued doctoral study efforts.

Part 7 300-400 words

Using the online library, read the following article:

Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. Business Source Complete

Considering the concepts of methodological fit presented in the article, draft a purpose statement for what you want your dissertation research to be. (see methodological attachment)

Be sure to address the following:

The purpose statement
Include both a description of your research problem or issue and the selected theoretical topic.
How could you apply Edmondson’s and McManus’ 3 archetypes of methodological to your proposed research purpose?
Explain your rationale, and cite sources as appropriate.

Part 8 300-400 words

What are some distinctions about research questions that guide quantitative research methods?

Focusing on your selected problem or issue and theoretical topic, propose a possible research question and a hypothesis that would require the capture of quantitative data.

Focus your discussion on the following:

What are some distinctions about research questions that guide quantitative research methods?
Suggest a single research question that you might consider for your own research.
Draft a single research hypothesis that you might consider for your own research.
Identify the independent and dependent variables in your hypothesis.
Is your hypothesis directional or nondirectional?

Part 9

locate 4 peer-reviewed (journal-length) sources that report empirical studies associated with your selected theoretical topic (from Phase 2 Task 1).
Download the articles.
Prepare descriptions for each that indicate the value of the study in understanding your own dissertation research ideas.

In 3–6 pages, address the following:

Title indicating the selected theoretical topic
Complete reference of each source in APA format
Study author’s abstract (copy and paste directly from the source into your paper).
Your description regarding the value of this empirical study for your own dissertation research process

Part 10 300-400 words

Explain how your research plan might consider the use of an experimental design, quasi-experimental or non-experimental design, or
Explain how a survey data collection strategy could be used within your own research.
Discuss lessons learned from your collected source information as applied to your plan. Be clear on which of the 3 quantitative designs (experimental, quasi-experimental or non-experimental) you’ve selected. Cite your sources using proper APA format.

Part 11 300-400 words

what are some distinctions of qualitative research questions? Focusing on your own selected problem or issue and theoretical topic, propose a central research question that would require the capture of qualitative data using interview or observational procedures.

Focus your discussion on the following:

What are some distinctions of research questions that are posed for qualitative research methods?
Draft a single, central research question that could be addressed through the collection of qualitative data.

Part 12

locate 4 peer-reviewed (journal-length) sources that report exploratory studies associated with your selected conceptual topic.
Download the articles.
Prepare descriptions for each that indicate the value of the study in understanding your own dissertation research ideas.

In 3-6 pages, address the following:

Title indicating the selected conceptual topic
Complete reference of each source in APA format
Study author’s abstract (copy and paste directly from the source into your paper).
Your description regarding the value of this exploratory study for your own dissertation research process

Part 13 300-400 words

Explain how your research plan might consider the use of a grounded theory design, a phenomenological design, or a narrative inquiry design, or
Explain how an interview data collection strategy could be used within your own research.
Discuss lessons learned from your collected source information as applied to your plan. Be clear on which of the 3 qualitative designs (grounded theory, phenomenology or narrative inquiry) you’ve selected. Cite your sources using proper APA format.

Part 14 300-400 words

briefly explain 3–4 reasons why conducting a study about your selected issue or problem and identified theoretical topic would be relevant and significant.

Focus your discussion on the following:

How might your study contribute to the scholarly literature?
How would your study develop original knowledge that adds to or could revolutionize study of your particular topic?
How could the study contribute to changes in actual practice?
How could the study be used to improve or redefine policy?

Part 15 300-400 words

Review the following mixed-method

Convergent
Explanatory
Exploratory

Focus your discussion on the following:

Select 1 of the 3 designs above for your own dissertation idea.
Provide a rationale for your choice of the specific mixed-method design.
Explain the specific purpose for each of the qualitative and quantitative components.

Part 16 300-400 words

A study’s internal validity is concerned with whether the researcher’s methods were appropriate for the study’s purpose and whether potential threats were minimized. External validity of a study is the extent to which a researcher can conclude that the results can be applied to a larger population or other organizational settings. How you assess the internal and external validity of any study must take into consideration its design. The criteria for assessing qualitative study methods are different from the criteria used to assess quantitative procedures.

Focus your discussion on the following:

Which specific internal validity issues are most likely to arise in your own dissertation research?
What procedures are you proposing to minimize these possible threats to your proposed research?

Part 17

provide a problem statement of 2–3 paragraphs for your selected dissertation research.

Part 18 200 words

Review and reflect on the knowledge you have gained from this course. Based on your review and reflection, write at least 1 paragraph on the following:

What were the most compelling topics learned in this course?
How did participating in discussions help your understanding of the subject matter? Is anything still unclear that could be clarified?
What approaches could have yielded additional valuable information?

Part 19

Develop a dissertation prospectus that will outline the key elements of your desired doctoral research.

Be sure to include the following:

Problem statement (2–3 paragraphs)
Significance (2–3 paragraphs)
Brief description of underlying conceptual or theoretical framework (2 paragraphs)
Statement of research purpose (1 paragraph)
Proposed general approach to the research (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods) (1 paragraph)
Summary of proposed methods: Possible sources of data and proposed data collection strategies (2 paragraphs) ? Academy of Management Review
2007, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1155–1179.
METHODOLOGICAL FIT IN MANAGEMENT
FIELD RESEARCH
AMY C. EDMONDSON
Harvard Business School
STACY E. MCMANUS
Monitor Executive Development
Methodological fit, an implicitly valued attribute of high-quality field research in
organizations, has received little attention in the management literature. Fit refers to
internal consistency among elements of a research project—research question, prior
work, research design, and theoretical contribution. We introduce a contingency
framework that relates prior work to the design of a research project, paying particular
attention to the question of when to mix qualitative and quantitative data in a single
research paper. We discuss implications of the framework for educating new field
researchers.
This article introduces a framework for assessing and promoting methodological fit as an
overarching criterion for ensuring quality field
research. We define methodological fit as internal consistency among elements of a research
project (see Table 1 for four key elements of field
research). Although articles based on field research in leading academic journals usually exhibit a high degree of methodological fit, guidelines for ensuring it are not readily available.
Beyond the observation that qualitative data are
appropriate for studying phenomena that are
not well understood (e.g., Barley, 1990; Bouchard,
1976; Eisenhardt, 1989a), the relationship between types of theoretical contributions and
types of field research has received little explicit attention. In particular, the conditions under which hybrid methods that mix qualitative
and quantitative data are most helpful in field
research—a central focus of this paper—are not
widely recognized.
We define field research in management as
systematic studies that rely on the collection of
original data— qualitative or quantitative—in
real organizations. The ideas in this paper are
not intended to generalize to all types of management research but, rather, to help guide the
design and development of research projects
that centrally involve collecting data in field
sites. We offer a framework that relates the
stage of prior theory to research questions, type
of data collected and analyzed, and theoretical
contributions—the elements shown in Table 1.
To advance management theory, a growing
number of scholars are engaging in field research, studying real people, real problems, and
real organizations. Although the potential relevance of field research is motivating, the research journey can be messy and inefficient,
fraught with logistical hurdles and unexpected
events. Researchers manage complex relationships with sites, cope with constraints on sample selection and timing of data collection, and
often confront mid-project changes to planned
research designs. With these additional challenges, the logic of a research design and how it
supports the development of a specific theoretical contribution can be obscured or altered
along the way in field research. Compared to
experimental studies, analyses of published
data sets, or computer simulations, achieving fit
between the type of data collected in and the
theoretical contribution of a given field research
project is a dynamic and challenging process.
We thank David Ager, Jim Detert, Robin Ely, Richard
Hackman, Connie Hadley, Bertrand Moingeon, Wendy
Smith, students in four years of the Design of Field Research
Methods course at Harvard, seminar participants at the University of Texas McCombs School, the MIT Organization
Studies group, and the Kurt Lewin Institute in Amsterdam for
valuable feedback in the development of these ideas. We
are particularly grateful to Terrence Mitchell and the AMR
reviewers for suggestions that improved the paper immensely. Harvard Business School Division of Research provided the funding for this project.
1155
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
1156
Academy of Management Review
October
TABLE 1
Four Key Elements of a Field Research Project
Element
Description
Research question
?
?
?
?
Prior work
? The state of the literature
? Existing theoretical and empirical research papers that pertain to the
topic of the current study
? An aid in identifying unanswered questions, unexplored areas,
relevant constructs, and areas of low agreement
Research design
?
?
?
?
Contribution to literature
? The theory developed as an outcome of the study
? New ideas that contest conventional wisdom, challenge prior
assumptions, integrate prior streams of research to produce a new
model, or refine understanding of a phenomenon
? Any practical insights drawn from the findings that may be suggested
by the researcher
Focuses a study
Narrows the topic area to a meaningful, manageable size
Addresses issues of theoretical and practical significance
Points toward a viable research project—that is, the question can be
answered
Type of data to be collected
Data collection tools and procedures
Type of analysis planned
Finding/selection of sites for collecting data
In well-integrated field research the key elements are congruent and mutually reinforcing.
The framework we present is unlikely to call
for changes in how accomplished field researchers go about their work. Indeed, experienced
researchers regularly implement the alignment
we describe. However, new organizational researchers, or even accomplished experimentalists or modelers who are new to field research,
should benefit from an explicit discussion of the
mutually reinforcing relationships that promote
methodological fit.
The primary aim of this article, thus, is to
provide guidelines for helping new field researchers develop and hone their ability to
align theory and methods in field research.
Because a key aspect of this is the ability to
anticipate and detect problems that emerge
when fit is low, our discussion explores and
categorizes such problems. A second aim is to
suggest that methodological fit in field research is created through an iterative learning
process that requires a mindset in which feedback, rethinking, and revising are embraced
as valued activities, and to discuss the implications of this for educating new field researchers. To begin, in the next section we
situate our efforts in the broader methodolog-
ical literature and describe the sources that
inform our ideas.
BACKGROUND
Prior Work on Methodological Fit
The notion of methodological fit has deep
roots in organizational research (e.g., Bouchard,
1976; Campbell, Daft, & Hulin, 1982; Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999; McGrath, 1964). Years ago,
McGrath (1964) noted that the state of prior
knowledge is a key determinant of appropriate
research methodology. Pointing to a full spectrum of research settings, ranging from field research to experimental simulations, laboratory
experiments, and computer simulations, he presented field studies as appropriate for exploratory endeavors to stimulate new theoretical
ideas and for cross-validation to assess whether
an established theory holds up in the real world.
The other, non-field-based research settings
were presented as appropriate for advancing
theory. Understandably, given the era, McGrath
did not dig deeply into the full range of methods
that have since been used within field research
alone.
Subsequently, Bouchard, focusing on how to
implement research techniques such as inter-
2007
Edmondson and McManus
views, questionnaires, and observation, noted,
“The key to good research lies not in choosing
the right method, but rather in asking the right
question and picking the most powerful method
for answering that particular question” (1976:
402). Others have issued cautions against assuming the unilateral rightness of a method—
wielding a hammer and treating everything as
nails (e.g., Campbell et al., 1982). Yet all researchers are vulnerable to preferring those
hammers that we have learned to use well.
Thus, we benefit from reminders that not all
tools are appropriate for all situations. At the
same time, exactly how to determine the right
method for a given research question—particularly in the field— has not been as well specified.
More recently, Lee et al. (1999: 163) tackled the
challenges of research in “natural settings” to
explicate strategies for effective qualitative organizational and vocational research. Using exemplars, these authors showed that qualitative
data are useful for theory generation, elaboration, and even testing, in an effort to “inspire
[other researchers] to seek opportunities to expand their thinking and research” and to help
them “learn from this larger and collective experience and avoid misdirection” (1999: 161). In
advocating the benefits of qualitative work for
organizational researchers, these authors provide a helpful foundation for the present paper.
We build on this work by distinguishing among
purely qualitative, purely quantitative, and hybrid designs, as well as by including a fuller
range of field research methods in a single
framework. The categories we develop allow a
more fine-grained analysis of field research options than offered previously.
A recent body of work debates the appropriateness of combining qualitative and quantitative methods within a single research
project. Issues addressed in this debate include whether qualitative and quantitative
methods investigate the same phenomena, are
philosophically consistent, and are paradigms
that can reasonably be integrated within a
study (e.g., Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989;
Morgan & Smircich, 1980; Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002; Yauch & Steudel, 2003). Consistent
with Yauch and Steudel (2003), who provide a
brief review of the current thinking on this
topic, we propose that the two methods can be
combined successfully in cases where the

1157
goal is to increase validity of new measures
through triangulation 1 and/or to generate
greater understanding of the mechanisms underlying quantitative results in at least partially new territory. This paper complements
prior work on hybrid methods by addressing
how the state of current theory and literature
influences not only when hybrid research
strategies are appropriate but also when other
methodological decisions are appropriate and
how different elements of research projects fit
together to form coherent wholes.
Sources for Understanding Fit in Field
Research
Several sources have informed the ideas presented in this paper. A long-standing interest in
teaching field research methods fueled extensive note taking, reflection, and iterative model
building over the past decade. In this reflective
process we drew first from the many highquality papers reporting on field research published in prominent journals; we use a few of
these articles as exemplars to highlight and explain our framework. Second, we drew from our
own experiences conducting field research,
complete with missteps, feedback, and extensive refinement. Third, the first author’s experience reviewing dozens of manuscripts reporting
on field research submitted to academic journals provided additional insight into both the
presence and absence of methodological fit.2
Unlike reading polished published articles, reviewing offers the advantage of being able to
observe part of the research journey. Moreover,
a reviewer’s reward is the opportunity to see
how other anonymous reviewers have evaluated the same manuscript— constituting an informal index of agreement among expert judges.
Papers rejected or returned for extensive revision because a poor match among prior work,
1
Triangulation is a process by which the same phenomenon is assessed with different methods to determine
whether convergence across methods exists. See Jick (1979)
for a thoughtful discussion.
2
These reviewing experiences were important inputs into
the framework in this paper; however, the confidentiality of
the review process precluded using these cases as examples. To illustrate poor fit and attempts to improve fit later in
the article, we resorted to drawing on our second primary
source—our own field research projects.
1158
Academy of Management Review
research questions, and methods helped inform
our framework; agreement among expert reviewers strengthens our confidence in these
ideas.
This agreement is not explained by explicit
instruction. A glance at the current Academy of
Management Journal and Administrative Science Quarterly checklists for reviewers reveals
an emphasis on the quality of the individual
elements of a submission—for example, “technical adequacy”—without a formal criterion for
evaluating fit among elements. Yet researchers
may employ a particular method exceptionally
well, without it being an effective approach to
studying the stated research question. This happens, in part, because field research is often
spurred by unexpected data collection opportunities. Responding to requests from contacts at
companies, researchers may collect data driven
by company interests but not well matched to
initial research questions. For example, surveys
may be distributed that help the site but that
have limited connection to the researcher’s theoretical goals. Similarly, interview data from a
consulting project may be reanalyzed for research, focusing on an area of theory not well
suited to purely qualitative research. The opportunistic aspect of field research is not in itself a
weakness but may increase the chances of poor
methodological fit when data collected for one
reason are used without careful thought for another.
The experience of reviewing also highlights
that a lack of methodological fit is easier to
discern in others’ field research than in one’s
own. This motivated us to develop a formal
framework to help researchers uncover areas of
poor fit in their own field research earlier in the
research journey, without waiting for external
review.
Drawing on the above sources, we inductively
derived the framework presented in this paper,
revising it along the way, driven by each other
and by colleagues and reviewers both close and
distant. In exploring methodological fit, we are
particularly focused on how the state of current
theory shapes other elements of a field research
project. For clarity of illustration and comparisons across diverse methods, we limit the substantive topic of the research projects discussed
to one area— organizational work teams.
In the next section we show that producing
methodological fit depends on the state of rele-
October
vant theory at the time the research is designed
and executed. We use the state of prior theory as
the starting point in achieving methodological
fit in field research because it serves as a given,
reasonably fixed context in which new research
is developed: it is the one element over which
the researcher has no control (i.e., the state of
extant theoretical development cannot be modified to fit the current research project).
A CONTINGENCY FRAMEWORK FOR
MANAGEMENT FIELD RESEARCH
The State of Prior Theory
We suggest that theory in management research falls along a continuum, from mature to
nascent. Mature theory presents well-developed
constructs and models that have been studied
over time with increasing precision by a variety
of scholars, resulting in a body of work consisting of points of broad agreement that represent
cumulative knowledge gained. Nascent theory,
in contrast, proposes tentative answers to novel
questions of how and why, often merely suggesting new connections among phenomena. Intermediate theory, positioned between mature
and nascent, presents provisional explanations
of phenomena, often introducing a new construct and proposing relationships between it
and established constructs. Although the research questions may allow the development of
testable hypotheses, similar to mature theory
research, one or more of the constructs involved
is often still tentative, similar to nascent theory
research.
This continuum is perhaps best understood as
a social construction that allows the development of archetypes. Consequently, it is not always easy to determine the extent of theory development informing a potential research
question.3 We propose a continuum rather than
3
We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out
and Terry Mitchell for suggesting how we might address this
issue. To gain insight into raters’ agreement on this categorization approach, we prepared short descriptions of fourteen research questions that each began with a brief summary of the state of prior work on the topic. The fourteen
cases included the articles described in this paper, along
with a few additional field research studies. We then asked
four organizational researchers to categorize them according to definitions of the three stages of theory we provided.
The average overall agreement with our intended classifi-
2007
Edmondson and McManus
clear stages to acknowledge that the categories
we suggest are not obvious or inviolable and to
recognize the potential for debate on the status
of prior work related to a given research question. In short, our aim is to help field researchers
think about methodological fit in a more explicit, systematic way, using exemplars from the
organizational literature to illustrate how the
state of current theory informs methodological
decisions.
Developing Sensible Connections to Prior
Work
In a given field study, the four elements in
Table 1 should be influenced by the stage of
development of the current literature at the time
of the research. In general, the less known about
a specific topic, the more open-ended the research questions, requiring methods that allow
data collected in the field to strongly shape the
researcher’s developing understanding of the
phenomenon (e.g., Barley, 1990). In contrast,
when a topic of interest has been studied extensively, researchers can use prior literature to
identify critical independent, dependent, and
control variables and to explain general mechanisms underlying the phenomenon. Leveraging prior work allows a new study to address
issues that refine the field’s knowledge, such as
identifying moderators or mediators that affect
a documented causal relationship. Finally,
when theory is in an intermediate stage of development— by nature a period of transition—a
new study can test hypotheses and simultaneously allow openness to unexpected insights
from qualitative data. Broadly, patterns of fit
among research components can be summarized as in Table 2.
We begin our more detailed exploration of fit
between theory and method with a discussion of
mature theory, because it conforms to traditional models of research methodology and so
serves as a conceptual base with which to compare the other two categories. By drawing primarily on the topic of work teams, we demonstrate that the state of prior knowledge for
specific research questions within one broad
topic can vary from mature to nascent.
Mature Theory Research
Mature theory encompasses precise models,
supported by extensive research on a set of related questions in varied settings. Maturity
stimulates research that leads to further refinements within a growing body of interrelated theories. The research is often elegant, complex,
and logically rigorous, addressing issues that
other researchers would agree from the outset
are worthy of study. Research questions tend to
focus on elaborating, clarifying, or challenging
specific aspects of existing theories. A researcher might, for example, test a theory in a
new setting, identify or clarify the boundaries of
a theory, examine a mediating mechanism, or
provide new support for or against previous
work.
Specifi…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment