Researchers have an occasion to further organizational science and to make research practical by producing information that can impact changing organizational forms and circumstances. Pragmatically, academic researchers are not likely to get access to a company that is going through change unless the practitioners believe the research will be helpful (Gibson & Mohrman, 2001).
There have been a number of calls to augment the significance and effectiveness of organizational science to companies. The usefulness challenge cannot be defined merely as getting practitioners to value and include what academics learn. It is believed that the usefulness of research depends, somewhat, on the degree to which the perspectives of organization members are incorporated in research procedures and the results are included into those members' organization design activities that take place as their company adjusts to its changing environment. Research is more likely to be seen as useful if there are occasions for researchers and members to take each others' perspectives and to mutually participate in interpreting the results of the research (Gibson & Mohrman, 2001).
The research experience shows that practical informed subjective judgement based on an intellectual assessment of the existing body of theory is a necessary part of business research practice. Yet, the problem remains to convince others, particularly those less familiar with practice, that this is the case. Some experts suggest that a lack of competitiveness is a rather simple problem, solvable by filling the gaps in a promising group. This demeans the difficulties with which practice is complete and which necessitate considerable judgement and reflection. Clearly defining in a meticulous and objective way the relationships in a model is prerequisite to any scientific test of its validity (Business research as an educational problem-solving heuristic - the case of porters diamond, 1999).
According to Nuttall, Shankar & Beverland, (2011), one of the main reasons that people do qualitative research is to become more knowledgeable about a subject in which they are interested in. Too often in applied social research, particularly in economics and psychology, graduate students jump from doing a literature review on a topic of interest to writing a research proposal complete with theories and hypotheses based on present thinking. What gets overlooked is the direct experience of the subject. One should be required to spend some time experiencing the subject that they one to research, before they start a study. For example, before doing that multivariate analysis of gender-based differences in wages, one should go observe several work contexts and see how gender tends to be perceived and seems to affect wage allotments. Before looking at the effects of a new psychotropic drug for the mentally ill, one should spend some time visiting several mental health treatment facilities in order to see what goes on. If a person does this, they are likely to approach the existing literature on the topic with a new perspective because of their direct experience. They're likely to begin to devise their own ideas about what causes something else to take place. This is where most of the more appealing and valuable new theories and hypotheses come from. Qualitative research needs to be used as the basis for direct experience, but one also needs to know when and how to move on to devise some provisional theories and hypotheses that can be unequivocally tested.
Qualitative research has special value for looking at complex and sensitive issues. For instance, if one is interested in how people view topics like God and religion, human sexuality, the death penalty or gun control, it would be hard to develop a quantitative methodology that would do anything more than sum up a few key positions on these issues. While this type of research is done all the time, if one really wants to try to attain a deep understanding of how people think about these topics, some type of in-depth interviewing is probably the best way to go (Nuttall, Shankar & Beverland, 2011).
Quantitative research design, on the other hand, is an excellent way of confirming results and proving or disproving a hypothesis. The makeup has not changed for years, so it is standard across many scientific fields and disciplines. After statistical analysis of the results, a complete answer can be reached, and the results can be rightfully discussed and published. Quantitative experiments also filter out outside factors, if properly designed, and so the results attained can be seen as real and impartial. Quantitative experiments are functional for testing the results attained by a series of qualitative experiments, leading to a concluding answer, and a narrowing down of probable directions for follow up research to take (Nelder, 2011).
Researchers in a lot of disciplines develop theory by making frequent observations over time, and generating a construct that can be used to become familiar with an idea at a very high level, and comprehend the underlying intricacy. Theories add to a part of research discourse where researchers put forward new work to broaden, refine or refute the work of others. Theories also develop when researchers consolidate many small theories into a larger one. Theories can be promising, suggesting a research agenda for further modification; intermediate, where constructs that are formed needs to be tested; and mature, where a theory is very well recognized, suggesting that no new confirmation is likely to alter the clarification (Edmondson & McManus, 2007).
The prospective to make theoretical contributions is a particular strength of case study research. In a new and uncharted area, contributions can be innovative. In established areas, contributions are more likely to be incremental developments of the work of preceding theorists. New empirical evidence from case study research can provide theoretical insights that can corroborate or challenge existing theory. In this way theoretical contributions, which have to be valued in terms of the competing research paradigms, develop the knowledge base of a number of disciplines (Harlow, 2009).
Reductionism is the action of taking statements of one sort, that is, statements characterizing a phenomenon or practice in a certain language, and transposing or translating these to statements of another sort where the latter are taken to be feature of a simpler, clearer or perhaps more precise or more widely documented or recognizable language. Thus, when one reduces statements of the sort there is a relationship between the unbalanced force applied to an object and resultant hastening of that object (Stam, 2007).
Reductionism refers to the practice of dividing the whole into its parts, and then looking at them separately. Reductionism is also the tendency to reduce the complex to the simple (Wood & Caldas, 2001). Problems, in the reductionist approach, are solved scientifically. Key parts or assumptions are identified, data about the part is collected, data is analysed, hypothesis's are proposed and tested, results are evaluated and conclusions are made. This method is based on four principles: first, everything can be separated into its component parts. Second, any of those parts can be substituted for. Third, the solution of the partial problem can solve the whole problem. Fourth, the entire thing is nothing more than the sum of its parts (Nadler, 2004).
Although most use reductionism to solve problems there are some that don't feel it is the best approach. According to Nadler, (2004), a person can not resolve problems creatively by simply using the time-honored but unimaginative reductionist approach of patterning new solutions on past successes. Research shows that leading solution creators use an intuitive, holistic method that can be described as a smart questions approach. This enormous number of people using the conventional problem-solving approach is a cause of the unproductive and fruitless results that so frequently occur. Many wonder how this could happen, how so many people could be using unproductive methods. The major reason is that they are taught and almost all organizations use reductionism to solve troubles
Problem solving is slanting toward the past. It aims to examine what existed in the past, and pinpoint whatever is wrong with that. It seeks a single solution within a fix-it mentality. Every now and then, someone will think outside the box, but this is largely to no avail. Once the problem is solved, the problem solver moves on to the next problem. Problem solving is fact-oriented, cold, rational, and impersonal. Creating solutions is oriented toward the future. It aims to recognize situations in terms of where people want to be years from now before deciding what to do today. It identifies that problems exist in time and so solutions must be living solutions, ones that are adaptable, flexible, and ready to adapt as needs change. Solution formation is innovative as well as people-centered, warm, fluid, and effective. Reductionist thinking is exactly what causes so many fads to take place in the problem-solving and organizational change fields, such as re-engineering, total quality, empowerment and team building. An idea that works in one company often takes root and spreads like wildfire among other corporations and businesses,…
Sources Used in Document:
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.), National Academy of Sciences
(U.S.), National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine (U.S.). (2009). On
being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research, (3rd ed.). Washington,