University of Salford

Zurich Residency

Dissertations

Dr Alistair Benson
 Research Methods for Dissertations
Outline of the two sessions

• Nature of the task and basic RKC dissertation process

• Dissertation sections overview
• Dealing with published research (literature review)
• Gathering information (methodology)
• Presenting and analysing information (finings and
discussion of results)
• Coming to conclusions
• Writing up
 Dissertations
Topics of this first session:
• The nature of academic research
• Learning outcomes
• The RKC dissertation process
• Choosing a topic
• The standard dissertation structure
• Introduction to the proposal
• A word about the abstract
• The opening chapter and research question(s)
• The literature review
• Introduction to research methodology
 Two important differences

• In contrast to taught modules, the dissertation process is

driven by you. One-to-one supervision, but supervisor only
advises: you are responsible for how you organize your
work schedule and for what you produce.

• Your dissertation is a piece of academic research. In contrast

to what is done in taught modules, you carry out an
investigation to discover something new.
 Principal expected learning outcomes

You are expected to show that you can:

• act autonomously in planning and implementing a substantial

piece of research over a period of months

• write in a clear manner to a prescribed format

• demonstrate an ability to apply an appropriate method to

address a given research question or questions

• critically evaluate theories and published research (not all

published research is accurate or reliable!)
 The nature of academic research
The word “research” within academia is not used in its everyday
sense of merely gathering information.
It presupposes a hypothesis: a supposition based at first on limited
evidence. The hypothesis is set out in a specific research question
or series of questions. The dissertation is an attempt to prove or
disprove it.
So:
A Masters research dissertation is not a descriptive business report
but a piece of analytical academic writing, and evaluation of
evidence. As well as being potentially practical, it is an exercise in
logical thinking, critical analysis, and academic rigour .
 The nature of academic research
Note that marks are awarded for the way you go about the task,
not necessarily for what you may or may not discover. Negative
results are as valid as positive ones.

But be aware that, as Francis Bacon once put it.

“It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the
human understanding to be more moved and
excited by affirmatives than negatives.” i.e. we
all have a tendency to overvalue information
that confirms an idea we already have in our
minds.
 A practical point
Of what real use are academic requirements in my work? Why
bother with all the academic niceties like conforming to a
specific dissertation structure or knowing how to format a
reference? How will that affect my work practice?

1. The exercise is in itself one of training in logical thinking.

2. Shoot between the goalposts where they actually are, not
where you would like them to be!
Are you going to be a rebel, or give in and get the degree?!
 Principal expected learning outcomes
What does being “critical” mean?
• Analysing – the ability to probe existing literature and to
dissect it without necessarily accepting that what is said is
accurate and/or reliable.
• Discussing – the ability to identify and examine comparisons
and contrasts.
• Criticise – the ability to identify and explain strengths and
weaknesses.
• Summarise - the ability to draw together different strands
into a coherent whole.
 The basic process

1. You produce a proposal.

You are at Proposal stage
2. When Proposal accepted, stage is Intermediate
3. You upload drafts to the Thesis Repository (module page).
Should always be the main means of communication.
4. Your supervisor provides feedback on the drafts.
5. You upload your completed dissertation.
Stage is Final
 The Thesis Repository
Instructions on the TR scree are:

Each dissertation must follow the stages below:

Proposal
Intermediate (drafts of chapters etc.)
Final (the completed dissertation)

You should upload the files to the Thesis Repository. The text
should be in MS Word or RTF formats. Your supervisor will upload
feedback comments.
The Thesis Repository
 Interaction with your supervisor

• Agree a timetable with your supervisor indicating, with dates,

when you intend to complete stages of the dissertation
preparation - preliminary reading, write-up of individual
chapters, etc. Stick to it as far as possible.

• All RKC supervisors are very experienced at supervising

Master’s dissertations but do not expect yours to jump to
attention each time you contact him or her. It takes time to
read and comment on draft chapters. A delay of a week or
even more is acceptable. But keep in touch.
 Interaction with your supervisor

• Your supervisor will guide you through the whole process, but
will not write your dissertation for you. You are entirely
responsible for it. It is up to you to implement his or her
suggestions (or argue your case for doing otherwise).

• Your supervisor will not tell you what mark you will or might
achieve nor what your final dissertation is worth. You own the
dissertation not your supervisor. It is your responsibility to
ensure that you achieve a pass mark.

• It is possible to change supervisors.

 Length of the dissertation

• Dissertations should be between 12,000 and

15,000 words.
• Not included in the word count are everything
before the first chapter; indented quotations (of
more than 50 words); tables; figures; diagrams;
references list; appendices.
• If you exceed the limit, you will be penalised.
Word-limit extensions (which must be applied
for) will be granted only in exceptional
circumstances.
 Assessment

• Your dissertations will be first-marked by your

supervisor.
• The Pass mark is a grade C (50%).
• It is then second-marked (blind) by another
supervisor.
• Both produce detailed reports.
o If the two disagree by <= 5 percentage points,
higher mark stands
o If between 6 and 10 difference, discussion
o If > 10, arbitration (third marker)
 Choosing a research topic
First questions
• What areas of my Part 1 studies have interested me most?
• Are there things at my work I’d like to find more about?
• Have I read about something that happens or has happened
elsewhere but that could happen in my country or my
workplace?
• Are there areas of controversy or disagreement about how
things are done in an area I’m interested in?
• Is there a potential research gap?
• How easy will it be for me to get information about the topic?
 Choosing a research topic
Further questions
• Can I develop at least one Yes/No question about the topic? (or
maybe a Yes but only under certain circumstances)

If No, you may find it difficult to develop a proper discussion. The

danger is “easy” descriptive / explanatory writing,

 Examples of Yes/No questions

 Should the company I work for outsource its accounting
procedures?
 Can customer relations be improved in industry X?
 Are government regulations holding back progress in company X?
 Choosing a research topic
Further questions
• Can I develop at least one Yes/No question about the topic?

• If Yes, is there sufficient academic literature to support the

Yes/No question(s)?
 If No, you may fall into too much explanation rather than
critical analysis and/or be forced to use unreliable sources.

• If Yes, and assuming not just desk research, can I get access
to primary data (data I myself have collected)?
 If No, this may not be a suitable topic.

• If Yes, is there enough time to complete the work?

 If No, change topic!
 Choosing a research topic
Think carefully before embarking on:

• A very new topic for which there will be a limited research

literature. That said, very new areas can sometimes be tackled
successfully if the general field is well researched.
Example: Recently released new games machine
But not necessarily if research on the games market can be used
to predict

• A very well covered topic for which you may have trouble finding
something different to say
Example: Green energy.
But not necessarily if applied to a specific company’s policy

All this needs some thought before you make a decision

 Typical dissertation structure
• Title page
• Abstract
• Statement of originality; acknowledgements
• Table of Contents (ToC); lists of abbreviations, tables and
figures
• Introduction: necessary background information and research
aims and objectives, and research question(s)
• Literature review
• Methodology/method
• Results/findings
• Discussion of results (analysis)
• Conclusions, limitations, recommendations
• References
• Appendices, if any
 The Proposal
Starts with a questionnaire:

BUSINESS MASTERS DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

Name Student Number

Course

Provisional title of your dissertation, and central research question(s)

The topic(s) or issue(s) you wish to investigate

What facts or information will you need to gather? How will you go about doing this?

To which subject area(s) is this proposal in your view most strongly related?

e.g. Strategy, Organisations, Marketing

 The Proposal
• Note that only you can choose the topic.
• Proposal is an important part of the dissertation process. In some
places assessed as part of the overall mark (but not for Salford).
• Length approx. 1,500 words
• Two reasons for it:
(i) Allows supervisor to assess feasibility.
(ii) Essentially forms a plan, though not set in stone.
• May involve several iterations with tutor/supervisor but worth
doing.
 The Proposal
Structure is essentially a cut-down form of the full
dissertation, and should always include:
• Introduction as background and rationale for the
research
• Specific research question or questions
• Brief review of previous academic research
• Proposed method of research
• Feasibility of the research
 The Proposal
To get started on the proposal, first try to list significant, interesting
questions, and write them down as aims (or a single aim), and
objectives which together make up your research strategy. You will
be re-stating these aim(s) and objectives in the dissertation itself.

• Aims are what your research hopes to achieve, with the emphasis
on what, not how. One or two aims usually suffice.

• Objectives are more detailed than aims. They are steps on the way
and may typically focus on how you intend to achieve the aim(s).
There may be several objectives.
 The Proposal
Examples of aims:
To establish the extent to which a risk management model might influence
decisions in an NGO.
To evaluate the effectiveness of online training in company X.

Examples of objectives:
To compare usage statistics of available online material between various
user-groups.
To establish, with the use of a survey questionnaire, employee attitudes to
the recent change of leadership in company X.
To critically review the research literature on theory Z and determine the
extent to which is can effectively be applied to ...
 The Proposal
• Be realistic about what you can accomplish in the duration of the
project in acknowledging the other commitments you certainly
have.
• Justify your choice of the data collection and analysis methods –
never perfect since always constrained by resources, so state
what constraints you foresee.
• Mention any ethical, moral or practical issues likely to impinge
on your research.
There are university rules about ethics, and some research may well
need Ethics Committee approval. Take the following into
consideration:
 The Proposal - ethics
• How will you get the contact details of individuals to participate
in your research?
• Will you be within the law as regards data protection?
• Normally individuals are not named or treated in such a way as
to allow them to be identified without their express written
agreement.
• Note that Informed Consent means that the subject must know
the purpose of the study, what it entails and whether there is
any risk to them.
• The Proposal tutor must sign off an ethics-approval form
 Recap – typical dissertation structure
• Title page
• Abstract
• Statement of originality, acknowledgements
• ToC, lists of abbreviations, tables and figures

I deal with details of the above in a later lecture on writing up.

For now, an overview of the abstract and advice on constructing the introductory
chapter.

For later in this session and Session 2:

 Literature review
 Methodology
 Results/findings
 Discussion (analysis)
 Concluding chapter
 The abstract – its purpose
• Essential part of the process of academic writing.
• Allows reader to decide whether or not to read the full text.
• Example from Google Scholar:
 The first chapter
Some principles
• You can legitimately re-use the text in your proposal.
• Don’t try to say everything in the introduction, just outline
the broad thrust of your work and argument.
• Do not promise anything that will not be delivered later.
• Final writing of the introduction often best left till the end,
but not as a last-minute job. Write draft of it early on and
update as the dissertation develops: there will almost
certainly be changes.
 The first chapter
Typical structure of the introductory chapter

• Essential background information

• Rationale for the research
• Research question(s)
• Proposed methodology
• Outline of the structure of the rest of the dissertation
 The first chapter
Opening paragraphs
Statement of the general field of interest in one or two paragraphs.
Do not keep the reader waiting to find out the precise subject of
the dissertation.

Examples of opening sentences

• A characteristic of a flourishing economy is a booming small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) sector [...] This dissertation aims to
show that...
• The principal aim of this dissertation is to shed new light on
previous studies of public sector motivation by investigating...
• Research has shown that leadership practice has changed
considerably in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-2008. This
study offers evidence that...
 The first chapter

Background information

Do not include anything not directly related to the purpose of

your research. Page upon page of company or country
information for which no links with the research aims are
evident dilute the introduction. Such “easy writing” does not
impress examiners.

Some signposting can often help to contextualise (“As will be

seen in Chapter 5, this decision was significant”).
 The first chapter

Rationale for doing the research

• Why is the hypothesis you are exploring worth exploring?

What value does it add to existing knowledge and
scholarship?
• What is the potential practical value of the dissertation and in
what particular situation(s) will it have such value?
• What research gaps you have identified?
 The first chapter
Research questions – examples

Too broad for a Master’s dissertation

Is it cost-effective for companies to outsource the development of
their IT products and services?

Suitably focused main research question

In order to support its core business, how cost-effective is it for the
Eastern Illyrian Ministry of Spatial Planning to develop its own IT
products and services rather than outsourcing this activity?
 The first chapter
Research questions – more examples
Explanatory – poor: leads to mere description
How do firms report risk management?

Analytical – good: leads to critical approach

Do the annual reports of loss-making firms with respect to their policy
on risk management differ from those of profitable firms? [Yes / No
main question].
[In which ways do they differ? What is the significance of the
differences? etc.]
 The first chapter
Research questions – further examples of
appropriately focused questions
To what extent has XY Football Club’s promotion to the top league affected
the local economy?
What have been the effects on employees of Company X of a recent major
acquisition?
What are the risks and benefits of Organisation X’s proposed international
joint venture?
What are the main factors affecting profitable e-commerce deployment in
government organisations in country Z?
What are advantages and disadvantages for mobile phone operators of
regional integration into the European Union?
 The Literature Review

Main topics covered in this section

• Rationale of the Literature

Review
• Structure of the Literature
Review
• On being “critical”
• Referencing
 The Literature Review
Rationale
A review of the available research literature:

• tells the reader what has already been done in the

field, so:
• places your study in a historical perspective, so shows
how it relates to existing literature in the area under
investigation
• identifies the most important relevant sources of
information
• identifies the key issues, concepts and debates in the
field
 The Literature Review
Rationale
A review of the available research literature:
• shows why and how your research questions are valid
• provides evidence of scholarship
• shows that there is a scholarly, theoretical base for your
research
• identifies any gaps in the current state of knowledge
• identifies appropriate research methodology and
techniques
• compares different authors' views on the issue in
question
 The Literature Review
Rationale
A review of the available research literature helps:
•you to see all potential areas to be included
•to spot themes
•to pick out the specific aspects you write about (do not
write a lot about a little and a little about a lot)
•to show the examiners all the areas you initially
considered
•you to put the topics in the most suitable order
 The Literature Review
Rationale
The two most crucial reasons as regards your mark.
A review of the available research literature:
• highlights the most influential publications in the field, and
so, by inference, demonstrates your familiarity with it
• shows in which ways the publications you select throw
light on your research question(s)
In short, the published evidence for and against your
hypothesis.
 The Literature Review
Resources

Many online:
• RKC – https://campus.college.ch/library
• Google Scholar – https://scholar.google.com
• OU – http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/thesis/
• DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) –
https://doaj.org/
• Other universities
 The Literature Review
Things to do and consider
• Conduct a thorough literature search before anything else.
Should directly inform the methodology, which is why this
chapter normally precedes Methodology.
• As you do the reading, keep record of all bibliographical
details of every source you think you might use. Easier to
delete than search for lost details.
• Ensure analytical, critical approach not merely descriptive or
explanatory. If possible. show any disagreements in the
published literature, in this way directly informing the
research question(s).
.
 The Literature Review
Typical student issues/questions
• There’s too much to read!
Your problem may not be finding the information, but
selecting what you should use. This is why the literature
review takes so long. Get used to selecting from titles and
abstracts
• How many references do I need?
How long is a piece of string? But between 20 and 40
is average
• What is “appropriate” literature?
This is a crucial question
 The Literature Review
What is appropriate literature?
• Peer-reviewed (refereed) journal publications (peer-
reviewed journals state that they are so).
• Text books. But take care – while useful for, say, definitions,
they are not always research-oriented.
• Un-reviewed Web references are acceptable but only if no
corresponding peer-reviewed sources and/or if complete up-
to-dateness is vital.
• Avoid unreliable sources such as newspapers, popular
magazines, unless there is no other source (in which case say
so).
 The Literature Review
Academic value of sources, in order of value
1. Peer-reviewed papers in journals (e-journals acceptable)
2. Doctoral theses (some Master’s dissertations, but care!)
3. Government publications
4. Papers in peer-reviewed conference proceedings
5. Textbooks (except for books on writing dissertations)
6. Company reports
7. Papers in unrefereed conference proceedings
8. Newspapers and magazines
9. Blogs etc.
10. Unpublished material
 The Literature Review
Ask yourself about each source:
•Is the author an academic? a journalist? another student?
•Is the date of publication significant?
•Was the text written for a general or a specific
readership?
•Is there a list of references / bibliography?
•If so, any sources which would be useful to you?
 The Literature Review
Examples of principal journals in a field (HRM)

Human Resource Management Journal

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Human Resource Management Review

The Academy of Management Journal

The British Academy of Management Journal

 The Literature Review
Examples of principal journals in a field (banking)

Academy of Banking Studies Journal

International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies

Journal of Applied Finance & Banking

Journal of Banking & Finance

Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce

The Review of Finance & Banking

 The Literature Review
This can’t be repeated too often:

Internet sources are of very variable quality – you

need to be particularly careful, and very critical, in
your use of them. Your mark will heavily depend on
your ability to distinguish reliable from unreliable.
An evaluation of a product in a peer-reviewed
journal will carry far more weight than one offered
by the leading supplier of that product.
 The Literature Review
An example (CRM)
From the company’s website:
“The ability for each user to customize his or her
experience gives each their own personal feel.
Customers feel engaged and this allows the user to
have more time to focus on building the business.”

From a peer-reviewed journal article:

“Recent industry analysis suggests that customers
generally report low to ambivalent ratings on
customer satisfaction measures (our study also
supports these findings).”
 The Literature Review
What about Wikipedia?
Some claim the most peer-reviewed source, but examiners tend to
think of it as unreliable and do not like it.
Rule of thumb: avoid citing it directly if possible, and then only for
factual information difficult to find in academic publications, but do
follow its reference links and use those instead:
 The Literature Review
How to be critical

First principle:

Build an argument not a library!

 The Literature Review
How to be critical
Being critical means evaluating, analysing and comparing,
not just listing. Evaluate!

Ask yourself:
• Which authors say the same things, which different things?
• Do they start from similar or different assumptions/viewpoints?
• Are their arguments valid (and why or why not)?
• What are their strengths and/or deficiencies?
• What does each author say about any other authors?
• Most important of all, what is the relevance of the sources you cite to
your research? Don’t dilute!
 The Literature Review
Planning the structure

Here’s a plan I use to ensure that I have been

analytical not merely descriptive or explanatory.

It can also be used for the Conclusions chapter, and its

principle can be applied anywhere in the dissertation.
 The Literature Review
Planning the structure
From what you have read, identify as many points as you can FOR and
AGAINST each research question. For example:

Smith et al > effect is significant

Jones > caution against reading too much into the effect

Doe > Resistance to change ubiquitous

Jacobs et al > Resistance to change often overstated

Many impact studies (e.g. ***) use multiplier effect

Some authors (e.g. ***) reject multiplier effect as too simplistic

Optimistic (Smith, Jones ...) SME sustainability take-up in ***

Pessimistic (Dupont, Martin ...) SME sustainability take-up in ***

Many authors (e.g. ***) Established concepts taken for granted

Martin, Costa et al > Older concepts no longer apply
 The Literature Review
Planning the structure

Briefly note the points in two columns with a good space between

For Against

Point 1 Point 1

Point 2 Point 2

Point 3 Point 3

Point 4 Point 4
 The Literature Review

For Against

Point 1 Point 1

Point 2 Point 2

Point 3 Point 3

Point 4
Conclusion
 The Literature Review

When you have written the first draft of the review, ask yourself:

• Does the review unambiguously focus on my research aims

and questions?
• For each citation, “Why have I included this?”
• Has the emphasis been on the most important and relevant
authors and works, not on peripheral issues?
• Are the sources sufficiently up to date?
• Where appropriate, is the review adversely critical of
sources?
The Literature Review
Books
 The Literature Review
Referencing mechanics and usage
 Referencing

Two main systems in academic publishing:

System 1. Footnotes/endnotes (Oxford system).

A superscript number in the text and a reference at the bottom of
the page (or at the end of the main text of the dissertation).

This is an example of Oxford referencing9

9. Bibliographic details at the bottom the page or all together

at the end of document.

Usually used only in the Humanities, and not used at

Salford.
 Referencing
System 2. In-text citation (Harvard) used at Salford

Citation in the body of the text. For example:

New research on worms has revealed some
remarkable behaviour (Jones, 2016).

This is in the list of references at the end:

Jones, G. (2016). The life of worms. British Journal
of Animal Life, 12 (2).

NB: every entry in the references list must have at least one
corresponding citation in the main text and vice-versa. There
must be no “orphans” either way.
 Referencing
System 2. In-text citation (Harvard system)

The world standard for MSc and MBA dissertations and

even these days for MA dissertations.

No single Harvard style as regards details. RKC

recommended style for formatting and layout is on style
sheet available on the RKC platform.
The crucial thing is consistency.
 Referencing
When to add a reference

Not a trivial matter because reveals knowledge of the field. Not

including a required reference is a fault. Including an unnecessary
or badly placed one can be just as bad because looks naive:

Computers are found in most offices (Smith, 2014).

Citation not acceptable because not necessary.
Computers are found in most offices but many are not used to their full
potential (Smith, 2014)
Citation acceptable.
Computers are found in most offices (Smith, 2014) but many are not
used to their full potential.
Badly placed reference.
 Referencing
When to add a reference

Not all instances are so clear-cut. You often have to make a

judgement about whether or not to include a reference, including
assuming the knowledge possessed by your readership:
Identifying human-resource capabilities is the most important
factor in meeting a company’s goals.

Would that be better if backed up by a reference?

Depends on intended reader.

If expert in HR and this is generally accepted principle, then omit.
For dissertation, where examiner is not known, since “the most”.
safer with a reference.
 Referencing
Quotations (quotes)
• Quotation is when you copy another author’s material word for word.
• You should show the reader that it is a direct quote by placing the
material between (usually) “double inverted commas” or in italics. 
• Sometimes difficult to avoid a direct quotation as the author’s words
may precisely describe the point you are making, but try to avoid the
overuse of direct quotation and to paraphrase the author’s words as
much as possible (paraphrasing techniques in a moment). 
• Note that when you use direct quotation, you must reproduce the
author’s words exactly, including all spelling, capitalisation,
punctuation, and any errors. You should show the reader that you
recognise an error by placing the term ‘sic’ in brackets after the error.
For example:

“Businesses are prevalent in capitalist economes (sic).“

 Referencing
Quotations (quotes)

There are two conventional ways to introduce a quote in a

dissertation.

Below is the quote you wish to incorporate into your text.

It was written by John Jones in 2012. It was on page 51 of a
book.

“the centrepiece will tend to be goals and objectives.”

 Referencing

Direct quote from a text with one author:

• When organising our time, Jones (2012: 51) states that “the
centrepiece will tend to be goals and objectives”.
or
• When organising our time “the centrepiece will tend to be goals
and objectives” (Jones, 2012: 51).
 Referencing
Quotations (quotes)

Direct quote from a journal article with two authors:

Morris and Williamson (2013) state that “the debate of these
particular issues should be left to representative
committees”.

Direct quote from a journal article with more than two authors:
Morris et al (2013) state that “the debate of these particular
issues should be left to representative committees”.

But include names of all authors in references list at the end

of the dissertation.
How would this book look in a Referencing
list of references? It was
published in 2010 by CIPD A book in a list of
Publishing references

How would it look if there

were other authors as well as
Taylor, such as Thomas Cutler
and Kristopher Entler?

What if there were seven

authors?
How would it look if this were
a collection of chapters by
various authors and Taylor was
the Editor?
 Answers

• Taylor, S. (2010). Resourcing and Talent Management (5th

ed.). London: CIPD.
• Taylor, S., Cutler, T. and Entler, K. (2010). Resourcing and
Talent Management (5th ed.). London: CIPD.
• Taylor, S., Cutler, T. and Entler, K. et al. (2010). Resourcing
and Talent Management (5th ed.). London: CIPD.
• Taylor, S., ed. (2010). Resourcing and Talent Management
(5th ed.). London: CIPD.
 Referencing
How would this journal article look in a list of references?
 Answer

Jacobs, G.C. and Watkins, A.J. (2010). On the exchange of

censorship types and maximum likelihood estimation for
parameters in lifetime distributions. International
Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 59 (4).
 Referencing
• How would this web page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/)
look as in in-text citation?
• How would it look in the list of references?
 Answers

In the body-text:
but there is now evidence of growth (BBC Business
News, 2014).

In the references list:

BBC Business News (2014). Japan posts strong
quarterly growth. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/.
Accessed 15 June 2015.
 Referencing
Don’t overdo!

This is overdone:

There are two serious weaknesses which must be taken into

account in assessing the work of Allen (2015). The first is that
Allen (2015) summarily rejects the socialist solutions to the
problem of calculation but then Allen (2015) fails to analyse the
reasons for the rejection. The second weakness is far worse.
Allen (2015) dismisses Keynes without even a second thought,
and while some may think it may be justifiable to write off Keynes
in this fashion, it can hardly be denied that there remains in that
great man the master economist. It simply will not do for Allen
(2015) to declare that in a free market there is only frictional
unemployment.
 Referencing
A single in-text reference is usually enough to acknowledge a
series of connected statements taken from one source. Here’s
an example of how it can be done:

There are two serious weaknesses which must be taken into

account in assessing the work of Allen (2015). The first is that
he summarily rejects the socialist solutions to the problem of
calculation but then fails to analyse the reasons for the rejection.
The second weakness is far worse. He also dismisses Keynes
without even a second thought, and while some may think it
may be justifiable to write off Keynes in this fashion, it can
hardly be denied that there remains in that great man the
master economist. It simply will not do for Allen to declare, as
he does, that in a free market there is only frictional
unemployment.
 Referencing
Paraphrasing
This is when you take another author’s ideas and put them into your
own words, so without quoting directly. You do not use inverted
commas or italics when paraphrasing, but you must clearly show the
reader the original source of your information.
For example the quotation:
“With so much of the management decentraised, the upper level of the
organisation is not overloaded with day-to-day decisions” (Kolodny, 2001)
might become
According to Kolodny (2001), a decentralised structure releases
management from some operational decisions.

Many students, especially those whose native language is not English,

find paraphrasing very difficult.
 Referencing
Paraphrasing

It is an exercise involving linguistic expertise, but it is crucial at

the very least to understand the difference between paraphrase
and simple word substitution.
Take the following direct quotation from the Allen (2015) article:
“Some commentators dismiss Keynes without even a second
thought, and while some may think it may be justifiable to write
him off in this fashion, it can hardly be denied that there
remains in that celebrated man one of the greatest
economists.”
 Referencing
Paraphrasing
How could you deal with that text without actually quoting it? Perhaps
something like this:
Original Allen text:

Some commentators dismiss Keynes without even a second thought, and while some
may think it may be justifiable to write him off in this fashion, it can hardly be denied
that there remains in that celebrated man one of the greatest economists .

Possible alternative

Allen (2015) maintains that while Keynes has been written off by some, he should still
be considered one of the greatest economists.

In other words, the easiest (and usually most effective) solution is to

write a brief summary rather than attempt a straight paraphrase.
Here is another example:
 Referencing
Paraphrasing
From an IMF report of 2009:
Pressures on emerging markets intensified in September 2008 following
the collapse of Lehman Brothers as the credit crunch’s impact on
economic activity became indisputable.

This is not an acceptable paraphrase and even risks an accusation of

plagiarism whether or not followed by a reference to the source:

The pressures on emerging markets became greater in September 2008

after the collapse of Lehman Brothers as the credit crunch’s impact on the
economy became undeniable.

This is an acceptable paraphrase:

As noted in an IMF report (IMF, 2009), the collapse of Lehman Brothers
led to increased pressure on emerging markets.
 Introduction to methodology – Research philosophy

• Many courses on academic research methodology deal

with theoretical aspects of it.
• Often abstruse, students often have doubts about
usefulness.
• Possible to write a good dissertation without
‘philosophising’, but Master's-level students expected to
have basic grasp of methodological theory.
• Provides a broad philosophical underpinning to your
research methods,
Methodology – Research philosophy
 Methodology – Research philosophy

Those words!
Anxiology Anti-positivism Naturalism Deduction
Epistemology Constructivism Nominalism Induction
Ethnomethodology Deconstructivism Nomotheticism Grounded
Ontology Determinism Objectivism theory
Phenomenology Empiricism Positivism Hypothetico-
Experimentalism Post-positivism deduction
Functionalism Post-structuralism Internalization
Humanism Pragmatism Hermeneutics
Idealism Radicalism
Ideographism Realism
Interactionism Subjectivism
Interpretivism Voluntarism
 Methodology – Research philosophy
Confusion!
Unclear meaning of words
“Advocates of research methods (Srivastava and Rego, 2011;
Saunders et al., 2009; Khotari, 2006) have used different terminologies
that are contradictory one to another, which leave students staggering
as to which is which ...”
Unclear choice
“The philosophical foundation [has given] rise to contradicting
arguments as to which philosophy is best for a particular subject. For
example, three different philosophical views have been identified for
information systems (IS), namely, critical social theory (Ngwenyama
and Lee, 1997; Orlikowski and Baroundi, 1991). Pragmatism (Agerfalk,
2010; Goldkuhl, 2008); critical realism (Hjorland, 1998; Dobson, 2002).”

Mkansi, M and Acheampong, E, A. (2012). Research philosophy debates and

classifications: Students’ dilemma. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 10 (2) 2012. (www.ejbrm.com)
 Methodology – Research philosophy

How to make sense of all this? How to reduce it to some

sort of clarity?
Two words often seen in Methodology texts

• Ontology: how we understand the world

• Epistemology: how do we know things?

How reliable is our judgement?

For example we may ask if a policy or new

procedure has been successful? How would
we know?
 Methodology – Research philosophy
Ontology concerned with nature of reality: realism and
relativism

• A realist sees reality as a law of nature waiting to be

found.

• A critical realist knows things but as a researcher he

or she influences what is being measured.

• A relativist believes that knowledge is a value-laden

social reality which can only come to light through
individual interpretation.
 Methodology – Research philosophy
Epistemology concerned with the theory of knowledge, how
we come to know things.
Four basic types of knowledge as regards research
Intuitive knowledge
Belief, intuition. Based on feelings: initial idea for the research
Authoritative knowledge
Information received from books, websites etc. literature review
Empirical knowledge
Facts determined through observation and/or experiment:
methodology
Logical knowledge
Reasoning from what is generally accepted, what is new:
findings
Methodology – Research philosophy

Four more basic words:

Deductive
Inductive
Positivism
Interpretivism
Methodology – Research philosophy

Deductive versus Inductive reasoning

 Methodology – Research philosophy

Deductive versus Inductive reasoning

Deductive approach: general to specific

Linked with Positivist paradigm

• Positivists believe that reality can be described from an

objective viewpoint.

• Positivist research methods include large-scale

quantitative surveys.

• Predictions can be made on the basis of what has

previously been observed.
 Methodology – Research philosophy

Deductive versus Inductive reasoning

Inductive approach: specific to general

Linked with Interpretevism paradigm

• Interpretevists believe that only through the subjective

interpretation of reality can it be fully understood.

• Interpretivist research methods include focus groups,

interviews, research diaries, that is, particularly
methods that allow for as many variables to be
recorded as possible.
 Methodology – Research philosophy

Example of an inductive, interpretive approach:

• You take a particular leader and set out to show that there
is no such thing as good leadership measurable by
characteristics.

Example of a deductive, positivist approach:

• You gather information on what has been said to make a
good leader and apply it to a particular leader to see if it
holds water.
 Methodology – Research philosophy
Grounded theory

Grounded theory is a way of looking at (mostly) qualitative

data leading to a theory about it that will fit the data.
.
So you do not begin with a theory and then attempt to
prove it, but rather you begin with an area of study and
then what is relevant is allowed to emerge from your
research.

Often associated with “coding” – categorising the words

people have uttered in interviews for example, and
attaching an identifier to the different types.
 Methodology – Research philosophy

Unless you are clear about what all this means,

better not to pretend you are. In other words, do
not use such terms unless you know what you are
talking about!
 Research Methods for Dissertations

Next: details of the Methodology chapter.