Catwriting

The Ingredients of Successful Research1

 
 
 
1Easterby-Smith, Mark, Richard Thorpe, and Andy Lowe. Management Research: an Introduction. Second Edition. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. 2002. pp. 13-23.
 
   

There is no simple way of ensuring that research will be successful. The types and contexts of research vary so widely that 'ideal' strategies will differ from situation to situation. And if the research is worth doing, then one is likely to be dealing with a problem which is not fully understood, and for which the ideal course of investigation cannot be charted in advance with any certainty. Nevertheless there are a number of factors which seem to increase the chances of research being successful - all things being equal. Four such factors are discussed in this chapter: motivation, support, style and personal qualities. The chapter concludes with some thoughts about one of the biggest problems of all: getting started.

MOTIVATION

Phillips and Pugh (1987: 29) offer seven pieces of advice on how not to get a PhD, the first one being, 'not to want a PhD'. We can express the point in a positive way by saying that much determination and single-mindedness are essential to completing any significant piece of research. There is so much uncertainty about the processes and outcomes of any project, and the work invariably expands beyond anything considered reasonable at the outset, so it is not an activity for the faint-hearted. Here we distinguish between three apparent motives for researchers: as a vehicle for learning; as a basis for personal growth and advancement and as a means of enhancing managerial skills.

  
It is now very common for management courses, particularly if they lead to qualifications, to contain an element of research. Many taught courses use the project or dissertation as a kind of 'capstone', as a way of integrating the different functional disciplines such as accounting and marketing which are often taught separately in business schools. Projects are also a popular way of enabling students to learn from direct engagement with the outside world. They can provide them with greater confidence in their own opinions as well as an opportunity to test out the validity of the theories offered by the text books. Students react differently to projects. Some will treat them instrumentally, as a way of achieving a pass on the course; some may use them to obtain contacts, experience and credibility which will help with job-hunting; and others find themselves getting absorbed by their projects, and excited at the novel possibility of studying something in depth.

This links to the second main source of motivation, personal growth and career development. There are many possibilities here. People may register for research degrees because they want to be given an external discipline for examining something in which they have long held a passionate interest; they may want to prove to themselves that they can do research; or they may simply want to belong to a research 'community' for a few years. For those wishing to develop careers as academics a research 'identity' is essential. This means that a consistent thread to an individual's research interests is sought when assessing candidates for appointments, and it is easiest to achieve this consistency when one is driven by strong personal interest..

The third source comes from a recognition that research experiences may lead to the enhancement of managerial skills and the solution of problems at work. As we suggested *in the first chapter, research may help to develop judgment; this 'includes the skills of judging what information is important, how and when to obtain it, and how best to communicate results. It is also likely to strengthen independence, because of the lack of prior rules and the need to initiate, structure and monitor progress on one's own for most of the time. But most of all it develops an individual's critical facilities in relation to judging the quality of evidence used to support particular courses of action. These skills are likely to become more important for managers as the business environment becomes more complex and unpredictable.

Some people may well have all three of the above reasons for doing research. At the very least, it helps if one has a combination of 'Internal' and 'external' pressures, such as a strong interest in a particular topic and clear expectations and deadlines from a sponsor, or one's family. And when embarking on research, especially where it involves a long term commitment, it is worth considering one's motives carefully.

  SUPPORT AND SUPERVISION

Research work can be very demanding on the individual. There are many uncertainties, doubts and crises that enter into most research projects. From her interviews with students, Phillips (1994) identified seven main stages in the process of conducting a Ph.D. These were: enthusiasm; isolation; increased interest; increasing independence; boredom; frustration; and a job to be finished. Not every research project necessarily goes through precisely the same seven stages, but ups and downs are inevitable. The emotional cost of these crises can be quite high, and hence it is important to consider the support, both technical and emotional, that can be obtained.

When the research is part of an academic degree the most obvious source of support is the supervisor or tutor. But not all supervisors are ideal. The following points are based on a combination of our, and others', experiences about the behaviour of supervisors who seem most successful at the task of supervising doctoral degrees. These points might be taken into account by those who are able to influence their choice of supervisor. First, he or she must possess some technical expertise, although some would argue that a general knowledge of the research area and of relevant methodologies is perhaps more useful than a very deep knowledge of the subject to be investigated. But as the field of management develops, then specialist knowledge of debates and recent literature in the chosen area is increasingly important. Moreover, the supervisor who is personally active as a researcher is also likely to belong to the international networks which control the leading journals and conferences. These networks provide a source of external examiners for doctoral candidates and also act as gateways into academic careers.

With regard to the practical aspects of the relationship, Phillips (1984) found that the better supervisors tend to set regular, and realistic, deadlines, although they do not interfere too much with the detail of the work. A 'responsive' style seems most appropriate if the researcher is to be encouraged to become autonomous and independent; and it also helps if the supervisor is prepared and willing to respond quite rapidly to any problems or written work. Ideally the supervisor should be prepared to 'turn round' draft chapters and reviews within a week or two, despite the growing pressures on academics. Availability is very important, and for this reason the guru with a string of brilliant publications, but who is never available for consultations, may not necessarily be the best supervisor.

The relationship between supervisor and student is also important because it must be strong enough to cope with the different stages of the research process (Deem and Brehony, 1997). Ideally there should be mutual commitment between the two parties, and this should, if possible, result from the initial choice and negotiation process. It should also be recognized that the role of the supervisor can be difficult at times. From our own experiences as supervisors there is often a nagging doubt that the advice one is giving may be wrong, and in most cases students will move beyond the existing knowledge of the supervisor during the course of the project. In the case of a doctoral thesis this is almost an inevitable consequence of the requirement for originality in a Ph.D thesis. But also in Masters and undergraduate dissertations which involve tackling broad-based problems the work is likely to fall outside the specialist area of the supervisor who therefore has to rely on 'generic' supervisory skills such as asking challenging questions or pointing the student(s) to alternative sources of expertise. There is also a delicate balance required between providing feedback, which highlights weakness in a piece of work, and providing praise and encouragement to try harder. The way out of this dilemma is to put across the message: 'this is fine in the following respects ... but it could be made even better in these areas ... and the way I'd go about it is ... !"

Not everyone is lucky enough to have a supervisor, and even when one has one there may be elements of ambiguity in the relationship. Hence it is always worth considering alternative sources of support. One of the best forms of support can come from colleagues, either through naturally occurring friendships, or through constructing a 'support set' - a group of four or five researchers committed to meeting regularly every few weeks to discuss their research progress and problems. It helps if the members of this set are working in related fields, but they should not be too close because this can sometime generate conflict and competition. This set may have a tutor (or set advisor who can help it to organize itself, and possibly, provide specialist advice and support. The members of the set should be able to use it to 'bounce' ideas of each other, and, particularly for those who are researching part-time, to provide contact with others who may be going through similar experiences of doubt confusion and disillusionment as themselves.

It is also important to recognize the potential for support outside one, immediate institution. Those wishing to develop academic careers will need to develop links within the broader community working in a particular area, and as we have pointed out above, this should be regarded as a crucial responsibility for the supervisor. But many of the better academic conferences will also organize doctoral days where doctoral students get the chance to present their ideas informally with leading figures in their field. By the second year of a doctoral thesis one should be submitting papers to conferences, possibly in conjunction with the supervisor initially (how else can overworked supervisor maintain their research outputs?!). It is through presenting papers at such con conferences that one can develop contacts with other collaborators and potential sponsors; and it forms an induction into the academic community which can be both reassuring and motivating for one's own research.

We have concentrated above on support for doctoral students since the long timescales mean that the relationship is very important. Those carrying out research as part of taught courses work under different time pressures and may be supervised both by an academic and a client/practitioner. In this case group supervision may be the norm, as with action learning sets or group-base projects. Though there is an important distinction here in that within an action learning set the members will be looking at different topics, while members of a group project team will be focusing on the same issue. The downside of group projects is, of course, that they now have to work as a team and this provides the added complication of having to work effectively in a group situation

For those planning careers as practitioners it can also be important to attend professional conferences. The opportunities for instant visibility and fame are less, simply because platforms are normally reserved for people who already have established reputations. Nevertheless, such conferences can put one in touch with what are considered to be the hot issues and fashionable ideas, and they may also lead to the establishment of personal contacts which have direct career implications. In addition, the rise of the Internet has created considerable networking opportunities for people on a global scale both via public conferences and through private e-mail exchanges.

STYLE AND CREATIVITY

In the previous section we explained why emotional support was a key factor in the successful completion of research work. Here we focus more on ways for ensuring that the research will be of good quality and will contain some originality. We argue that this is determined largely by the personal style and approach adopted by the researcher.

A fascinating study into the personal factors that contribute to discoveries in medicine is provided by Austin (1978), an American neurosurgeon who had become dissatisfied by the trite explanations provided by scientists about how great discoveries come about. He differentiated between four factors, or forms of chance, which seem to underlie many of these discoveries.

Chance 1 is simply blind luck. Although this may often be important, it is unlikely to be the only reason for a breakthrough. Relying on blind luck can take a long time. Austin reminds us that in bridge if you wait for 13 spades to turn up in a hand of cards, the odds are 635 million to one against.

Chance 2 derives from the researcher being in motion. Nobody, it has been said, trips over anything whilst sitting down. The greater the curiosity, resilience and persistence of the researcher, the more likely he or she is to find something of significance.

Chance 3 comes from having a prepared mind and being ready to see new relationships and solutions. This means being aware of past research that has been conducted through searching the literature and talking to other researchers, whilst at the same time being prepared to think outside existing frameworks and knowledge.

Chance 4 is a product of individualized action. This means encouraging distinctive, even eccentric, hobbles and lifestyles. In particular, the researcher should try to take a broad interest in people and other disciplines. Creativity is often born from associations and links made across traditional boundaries.

There are many examples of scientific research where the above elements of 'chance' are demonstrated. But the illustration that Austin himself uses is Fleming's discovery of penicillin in 1928. In an interview after World War II, Fleming commented that the discovery of penicillin was almost entirely a matter of luck: 'like winning the Irish Sweepstakes'. But Austin shows that this was not only a matter of blind luck. Fleming, by all accounts, was a tireless researcher; his great aim being to discover a new antiseptic, and even after the penicillin discovery he was extremely busy making and selling antibacterial vaccines. Thus he was a man who was continuously in motion.

It was his prepared mind which enabled him to note the effect on colonies of bacteria when a stray spore of a rare mould fell by accident onto his culture dish. Nine years earlier he had discovered the bacterial enzyme Lysozyme when . . . ' whilst suffering from a cold, his own nasal drippings had found their way into a culture dish. He noted that the bacteria round the mucus were killed and astutely followed up the lead' (Austin, 1978: 74). The parallels between these, and other experiences would be easy to perceive. Individualized action enters into the story because Fleming was a keen swimmer and water polo player. He had not chosen to train and work at the old St Mary's hospital because of the excellence of its scientific facilities, but because it had a good swimming pool. The laboratories were basic, badly equipped, cold and 'contaminated by organisms swirling in and out of the London fog' (Austin, 1978: 92). This made them a particularly good breeding ground for bacteria and stray spores! In this example it is possible to see all four forms of chance at work, and Austin suggested that major discoveries are most likely to take place when several forms coincide. This is what he calls the 'unifying observation' of the Fleming effect.

Unfortunately not all researchers are destined to make major discoveries. Indeed it is wise to content oneself with, what we have termed, invention or reflection; discovery is but a bonus, which may be made more likely if one follows Austin's prescriptions. The bulk of research is much more humdrum. This is true both for the social and natural sciences. Many sociologists have carried out detailed studies of the way that the natural sciences progress, and the consensus is that it is a gradual process, with much hard graft and very few genuine breakthroughs. Latour and Woolgar (1979) demonstrated in a classic study of a biological laboratory how scientific 'facts' emerged through a process of debate which was linked to the career strategies and progress of individual researchers. More recently, the study by Law (1994) into the management and organization of a particle physics research laboratory shows the impact of factors such as funding, politics and status hierarchies on the way scientific knowledge is produced and recognized. He also commented self-reflexively on his debates with colleagues and various changes of heart in the course of doing his own research study. These issues will be considered in more depth in the following two chapters.

Phillips and Pugh (1994) identify three characteristics of good research, whether it be grand or humble, and which distinguish it from activities such as decision-making or consultancy. First, it is based on an open system of thought. This requires continual testing, review and criticism of others' ideas, and willingness to hazard new ideas, even if one can't find half a dozen references to support one's view. Second, one must always be prepared to examine data critically, and to request the evidence behind conclusions drawn by others. Third, one should always try to generalize the research, but within stated limits. This means attempting to extract understanding from one situation and to apply it to as many other situations as possible.

The first two of these characteristics may require researchers to be aware of their own preconceived views (or self-reflexive, as Law, 1994 describes it), and to be willing to look for information that will disconfirm what they already believe to be the case. This willingness to have current beliefs disproven is important if new ideas are to be developed, and it also has a strong philosophical justification. The requirement for generalization may be either descriptive, where one wishes to demonstrate that the characteristics of one setting are similar to those in other settings, or it can be theoretical, where one demonstrates that the ideas developed within one context are relevant and useful in very different contexts. Both of these issues will be developed further in Chapter 3.

The qualities required by researchers are not easy to define. Turner (1988) compares the researcher to an expert cook, who finds it difficult to explain what he does but claims that the end result is evidence of his proficiency. There are many tacit skills involved in research. Although it is possible to develop formal skills and knowledge through training, these tacit skills can only be fully acquired through experience, and this necessarily implies working with others who are able to pass on the tacit skills that they have previously acquired. This is where the relationship with the supervisor is very important, and if one gets the chance to work on a project with experienced researchers, this can be very valuable.

In this section we have listed what we believe to be the important qualities of researchers. These are based partly on our own experiences and partly on external sources such as the ESRC Guidelines for Management Research Training (ESRC, 2001). The resulting qualities we have classified according to whether they comprise knowledge, skills or personal attributes. This classification is based substantially on Burgoyne and Stuart's (1976) work into the attributes of effective managers, and it is here that we think the greatest transferability lies between managing and researching. The skills and knowledge areas are progressively more specific to the conduct of research. These are 4core' qualities, which are important in any form of research, and are listed in Figure 2. 1. Those interested in a rough diagnosis of their strengths and weaknesses as researchers can rate themselves on each quality using the following I to 4 scale:

4 Possess to a high degree
3 Possess to a moderate degree
2 Possess to a limited extent
1 Have virtually none of these

If you have managed to rate yourself on the above qualities, then any ratings below 3 may be cause for concern (with the possible exception of item 5). What to do about any apparent deficiencies is, of course, a different matter. As a generalization: 'knowledge' can be acquired by reading and talking, or by attending courses; skills' can be acquired through practising them, either in a simulated or a real environment; and 'personal qualities' can be acquired, with much difficulty, through life or educational experiences. This book certainly cannot offer everything. It provides a reasonable coverage of items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10; and it touches on 6, 7, 12, 13 and 18. As for the rest, they may be acquired most easily by working with other researchers, in the form of apprenticeship suggested above by Turner (1988).

We believe that management researchers do need a broad training in skills and knowledge because of the diversity and complexity of problems in the management domain. Hence we refer to the following list as 'core' attributes. Beyond a certain point, however, specialization begins to creep in. One form of specialization depends upon whether the researcher is following a primarily quantitative or qualitative path. Thus if someone is carrying out analytic research into financial markets, they may not need to use any qualitative data in their research, and training in qualitative methods may seem a great irrelevance. But we still feel that it is important that they are able to appreciate/evaluate the qualitative work of others because it could still have some bearing on their own research. In addition, there is a trend towards more mixing of subjects and methodologies. Thus quantitative subjects may be tackled with qualitative methods, as in behavioural accounting; and qualitative subjects can be tackled with quantitative methods, such as frequency counts in textual analysis.

Figure 2.1. Core attributes of competent researchers.

Knowledge/Awareness of
Skills and Abilities
Personal Qualities
Different assumptions about the world
Qualitative and quantitative research methods
Range of research designs
Planing, organizing and mannaging one's own time
Searching libraries and on-line data sources
Interviewing and observation
Self awareness
Clarity of thought
Sensitivity to events and feelings
Immediate subject of study
Related subjects and disciplines
Key networks and contacts in chosen research area
Structuring and arguing a case in writing
Defending and arguing views orally
Gaining support and cooperation from others
Emotional resilience
Creativity
Learning from experience

Irrespective of the position taken on the qualitative/quantitative divide researchers will need to be skilled in the use of different methods for such things as seeking information, analysing data and presenting research results. Those following the quantitative path will need to have high levels of skill areas such as survey design, sampling methods, and statistical analysis; those following the qualitative path may need to be skilled at conducting 'in-depth" interviews, making field notes, coding and interpreting transcripts, and so forth. In Part III we give extensive guidance on the choice and application of qualitative methods, followed by a more limited review of possible quantitative methods.

GETTING STARTED

It is very rare for students to have a clear focus at the outset of their research, and yet many find the lack of a clear focus is a major impediment to getting started. It often takes research students a whole year to find an acceptable focus, and this may include false starts, drifting, and moments of despondency and elation. Indeed, the whole research project may be seen as a continuous process of focusing.

Those who are working on shorter, more applied, projects may be more fortunate in having a problem or question given to them by their supervisors, tutors or clients (we discuss the different influences on the research 'question' in Chapter 4). The situation for people working in the natural sciences is similar, because work and funding is often parceled up into groups of related projects, which are largely predetermined.

Whatever one's situation, it is worth getting started as quickly as possible. This means defining a provisional area of interest, reviewing relevant literature and gathering some data relevant to the focus. One way of thinking about a topic is to produce a model or 'mind map' of the issues involved. An example of such a scheme developed in relation to a project Mark was planning on international organizational learning is shown in Figure 2.2. In a Masters project time is short and one may then need to launch directly into the main study. In a doctoral project there is usually time to carry out a pilot investigation to test methodologies and to assess the feasibility of initial ideas, which might then lead into a larger study, or be completely jettisoned at a later stage. Even if data and reading subsequently needs to be discarded it does not necessarily mean that time has been wasted. There are most likely to be indirect benefits in terms of the contacts, ideas, or techniques one encounters on the way, and at the very least one is invoking Austin's (1978) second principle of being 'in motion'.

Once possible topics have been identified it might be worth considering them in the light of the study conducted by Hucznyski (1996) which looked at why certain management ideas and theories come to the fore and gain popularity at the expense of equally well researched and valid alternatives. Following Huczynski, we list below four main prerequisites for the successful management idea:

1. It must be timely and address a problem that is seen as important at that moment.

2. It has to be promoted effectively via academics, consultants and the business media.

3. It must relate to the needs and concerns of the managers to whom it is addressed.

4. It must be presented in an engaging way.

Sooner or later it is worth writing a research proposal which summarizes what the project is about, and how it is to be investigated. Some institutions require a proposal from prospective research candidates before registration, others require a formal proposal after 12-15 months if a decision is required about upgrading registration from MPhil to PhD levels. Research Councils require detailed (but concise!) proposals before they will allocate money to major research projects; shorter proposals may also be required at the beginning of Masters projects. Even if there is no formal external requirement to produce a proposal, the exercise of producing one is a very good discipline for drawing together half-formed ideas in the early stages of research.

The main items that should go into a research proposal are as follows:

1 A statement of the focus of the research and the main questions to be investigated;

2 An explanation of how it relates to, builds on, or differs from previous work in that field, and hence how it will constitute a 'contribution';

3 A summary of the research design including a description of what and how data will be collected;

4 An explanation of how data will be interpreted and how this will relate back to the initial questions posed;

5 Comments on the practical value of the research, and any problems that may be encountered in its conduct.

 The document should not normally exceed 3000 words although the amount of detail required will depend on the scale of the project and the time available. Likewise the emphasis and structure of the proposal will vary according to such things as the intended audience, the style of research and the methods to be used. As we suggested at the beginning of this chapter, there is no single formula for ensuring that research will be successful. One must always exercise judgement according to the particular circumstances that prevail. The next two parts of this book are intended to explain many of the factors that shape and constrain research, and thus to assist the researcher in making informed choices as he or she progresses.

Figure 2.2. Preliminary mind map for international organization learning project.

See URL

http://www.reedsresearch.com/SuccessRes/MindMap.jpg