Operations & Production
Management
Survey research in operations
management: a process-based
perspective
Cipriano Forza
Keywords Operations management,
Methodology, Surveys, Research,
Empirical study, Quality
This paper provides guidelines for the design
and execution of survey research in operations
management (OM). The specific requirements
of survey research aimed at gathering and
analysing data for theory testing are
contrasted with other types of survey
research. The focus is motivated by the need
to tackle the various issues which arise in the
process of survey research. The paper does not
intend to be exhaustive: its aim is to guide the
researcher, presenting a systematic picture
which synthesises suitable survey practices
for research in an OM context. The
fundamental aim is to contribute to an
increase in the quality of OM research and,
as a consequence, to the status of the OM
discipline among the scientific community.
Case research in operations
management
Chris Voss, Nikos Tsikriktsis and Mark Frohlich
Keywords Operations management,
Research, Methodology, Case studies
This paper reviews the use of case study
research in operations management for theory
development and testing. It draws on the
literature on case research in a number of
disciplines and uses examples drawn from
operations management research. It provides
guidelines and a roadmap for operations
management researchers wishing to design,
develop and conduct case-based research.
Action research for operations
management
Paul Coughlan and David Coghlan
Keywords Operations management,
Action research, Mehtodology
A fundamental methodological question
guides this paper: How can operations
managers and researchers learn from the
applied activity that characterises the
practice of operations management (OM)? To
address this question, defines and explores
the legitimacy of an action-oriented research
approach in OM, and the particular logic and
value of applying action research (AR) to the
description and understanding of issues in
OM. Begins with a review of the role of
empirical research in OM and how action
research features within the OM research
literature. Introduces the theory and practice
of AR; outlines of the AR cycle and how
action research is implemented. Finally,
describes the skills required to engage in
AR and explores issues in generating theory.
Conclude with the assertion that AR is
relevant and valid for the discipline of OM
in its ability to address the operational
realities experienced by practising managers
while simultaneously contributing to
knowledge.
Operations management research
methodologies using quantitative
modeling
J. Will M. Bertrand and Jan C. Fransoo
Keywords Operations management,
Methodology, Operational research, Research,
Quantitative modelling
Gives an overview of quantitative model-based
research in operations management, focusing
on research methodology. Distinguishes
between empirical and axiomatic research,
and furthermore between descriptive and
normative research. Presents guidelines for
doing quantitative model-based research in
operations management. In constructing
arguments, builds on learnings from
operations research and operat ions
management research from the past decades
and on research from a selected number of
other academic disciplines. Concludes that the
methodology of quantitative model-driven
empirical research offers a great opportunity
for operations management researchers to
further advance theory.
The articles in the present special issue
Many comments on the articles are already made in the context of a common
aim for all the articles. However, there are some specific comments on
individual articles that are useful to know before they are read.
Simon Croom starts the program sequence with topic issues and
methodological concerns for OM research. He takes the researcher through a
comprehensive process of planning a research activity. His approach is
summarized at the end of this guest editorial. It is different from the articles not
only in the sense that it does not deal with one of our four approaches, but also
that is more basic than the others. This text is more aimed at the younger
researcher planning, for example, a PhD research project. That is the role of
this part in the EDEN program but hopefully it will also offer a comprehensive
summary of the issues and choices that any researcher should consider in the
planning phase. An important aspect is to make the potential contribution
clear. Simon Croom is talking about positioning your research. I want to stress
the aspect, having rejected endless manuscripts that were without contribution
to knowledge in the field but only to knowledge of the author. He also takes us
through a condensed outline of a research process. It is our hope that this brief
introduction will stimulate the researcher to deeper pondering over the issues.
Cipriano Forza addresses the first of the different approaches with his article
‘‘Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective’’.
This is a long and, for some, may be heavy piece. This is for two reasons. It
serves, as already stated, as a basis for all the approaches. It is not that much
about statistics. There is a lot to pick up from the well-organized survey in
whatever type of research we do. Also this is really ‘‘a process-based
perspective’’ where Cipriano Forza has carefully followed the aim of this issue
of a step-by-step approach. Sorting out a theoretical model in the planning
phase is but one of the important aspects of doing research well. Sampling and
design of questions are generally important. The final discussion is on what we
can and should report and how to do it. Throughout the article there is effort to
provide solutions to common shortcomings of survey research in OM.
Chris Voss, Nikos Tsikriktsis and Mark Frohlich write on ‘‘Case research in
operations management’’. Case research is certainly a major approach in OM
research of today. There are many good reasons. It is an excellent way of
getting deep into a phenomenon, exploring issues and being able to generate
hypotheses of different kinds. The results often have a high attraction value
among practitioners who want to learn from others’ cases and do not care much
for statistical relevance of large samples, knowing that each organization is
different anyway. There are drawbacks such as time and resource consumption
and a criticism that we keep exploring and do not reach theory building. The
authors have highlighted the important aspects of planning and carrying
through case research and I especially want to point at factors that make this
approach reliable research, and not just industrial tourism. Systematic
development of research instruments and protocols is one aspect but most important and well developed in the article is the systematic treatment of data
including coding and doing the analyses.
Paul Coughlan and David Coghlan have contributed action research for
operations management. There may seem to be little difference between a case
study and an action research project since one may say that the action research
is done in a case. However, there is a clear divider in the sequence of articles
here. The purpose in action research is to interfere and take action, not only to
study. Coughlan and Coghlan discuss what is typical for action research and
when it can be used. A very important concept is that of repeated cycles of data
gathering, data feedback, data analysis, action planning, implementation and
evaluation. It is research in action with researchers in action. Almost by
definition this will also often be single case longitudinal field research. It takes
not only time but also experienced researchers. There are incomparable
potential benefits of deep insight also on causality and the possibilities of
experiments on the field are rather unique. This will well compensate for
criticism for lack of generalizability. If well carried through it is not a form of
consulting by academics either: consultants solve problems with existing
knowledge; we develop new knowledge if we do action research well.
Will Bertrand and Jan Fransoo complete the set of articles with ‘‘Operations
management research methodologies using quantitative modeling’’. I believe
that this approach fits in well first or last. It can be seen as a way of developing
a conceptual framework as well as testing problem solutions in real life
situations. This text is not on constructing complicated mathematical formulae
in an attempt to describe a real-life process in an algorithm. Relations between
operations research and OM are discussed rather thoroughly. This is an
understanding the potential alternative role of a model in conceptualisation,
and problem solving. The article is meant to assist each researcher, regardless
of approach in thinking of the problem, how to conceptualise it, and how to
validate the model that has been created explicitly or implicitly.
Final remarks
Reflections on the complete special issue
There are many concluding remarks that can be made on an attempt such as
this to cover ‘‘everything’’ in research methodology in OM without getting
down to a basic textbook and not able to reach only unique contributions to
knowledge. It is my hope that dealing in a comprehensive manner with the total
perspective will be a contribution to good practice of research in our field. It is
quite evident from this project that few researchers have that combination of
width and breadth in their research skill. At least that is evident for the authors
and the editor. The experienced reviewers have also been very careful in
defining their area and limitations of unique competence. For each article there
has been three rounds of review: an editor round; an ‘‘internal’’ contributors
round; and an external reviewer round, with at least three internationally
renowned researchers as reviewers for each article. A real challenge has been to
embrace the different perspectives on what is good research. Rather than compromising too much I, together with the authors, have tried to deal with
more or less all the critical remarks. Only one issue has not been possible to
follow completely. When the divisions have become too clear I have gone in the
direction of perspectives established in a combination of constructivist and
European context rather than in a positivist and US context. We in Europe
seem to be less controlled by the history of thought in production management
and more influenced by sociological and other roots in the behavioural sciences.
Before you proceed with reading this special issue and doing your research I
want to share with you one of my dogmas. Methodology is there to make it
credible to the reader that you have planned and carried through your study as
well as analysed and drawn conclusions in a way that we can rely on what you
write. It is not a section of the text where you excel in your favourite
methodological considerations or demonstrate that you read some literature on
methodology. The idea is quality assurance in research.
Thanks to authors and reviewers
I want to thank all who have contributed to this special issue – most of all, of
course, the authors for the present texts but also the head authors in each
article who have been the faculty in the EDEN program and developed the
complete concept together with me. Then, of course, I would like to thank all
the many reviewers who have done an excellent and substantial job and who
we have exploited by using their remarks without being able to name them
here. Feel honoured; we have stolen your thinking with pride.
Methodology editorial
On planning the research
The process of research
Here we set out to present the research process using a normative framework.
Whilst in practice we freely admit that the process of research is quite chaotic,
involving re-iteration between the various stages of the process, by means of
introduction we feel it is useful to examine a simple normative model of the
process in order to examine the various elements of a research programme.
Howard and Sharp (1983, p. 14) proposed a simplified process model
representing a systematic approach to research (Gill and Johnson (1991, p. 3),
presented this as a developmental sequence). Bryman (1988, p. 20) also
presented a similar model as an example of the logic of the quantitative
research process. Bryman’s normative model of the research process sets out
seven generic stages, and here we have posed the key questions addressed at
each stage, which we will explore in further detail through this article:
(1) Identify a broad area of study. Based on the mapping of the literature,
what is the general area of research?
(2) Select the research topic. Having an idea of the possible gaps in the
literature, and issues raised elsewhere, what is the central research
question?
(3) Decide the approach. What is the general philosophical position of the
research?
(4) Formulate the plan. What is the project plan, or research design?
(5) Collect the data or information. Based on the philosophical position,
what quantitative and/or qualitative data should be collected?
(6) Analyse and interpret the data. What methods of analysis are being
applied to quantitative and qualitative data analysis?
(7) Present the findings. Are the findings supportable? In other words, are
they valid?
Whilst this sequence is appropriate to a logical/rational problem-solving
situation, Gill and Johnson (1991, p. 3) cite Bechhofer’s (1974, p. 73) warning
that ‘‘. . . the research process is not a clear-cut sequence of procedures
following a neat pattern but a messy interaction between the conceptual and
empirical world, deduction and induction occurring at the same time’’. This is
acknowledged by Lazarsfeld (1958), who claims that although the research is
frequently chaotic and iterative, one can nonetheless identify four clearly
distinct elements or phases to the process.
His schema takes the first stage as imagery, in which researchers, having
‘‘. . . immersed themselves in the detail of a problem’’ (Lazarsfeld, 1958, p. 101)
create a construct, which at this stage may be rather simplistic and tentative.
The second stage is concept specification. This stage deals with the initial
construct by dividing it into its components. Lazarsfeld cites as an example
the division of ‘‘efficiency’’ into constituent elements such as speed, good
products and careful handling of the machines. The third stage is the
selection of indicators. Depending on the components of interest, and the
nature of the research paradigm, measures may be broadly obtained through
observation, simulation or perception. The fourth stage is the formation of
indices. Combining indicators and evaluating the relationships between them
is, in essence, the purpose of theory. Again, taking the example of
‘‘efficiency’’, typical indices that may be developed would relate speed to
defect rate, or alternatively relate utilisation of machines to defect rates of
products.
How to identify gaps, anomalies and contradictions in the literature
As the field of operations management (OM) has broadened to incorporate
topics such as new product development, supply chain management,
organisational change and enterprise system strategy, it has been necessary to
look beyond the ‘‘traditional’’ OM literature in order to gain insights into
existing research, theories and hypotheses. Classification of the literature as a
means of developing an understanding of the relevance and contribution of a
source is a necessary requirement for academic research. Here, it is useful to
position research in terms of its utilisation of existing theories, and
subsequently to identify clearly the contribution of the research to areas of
theory by mapping the literature field.
Mapping the antecedent literature is useful for clarifying how to frame
research questions. It is important to note that the identification of antecedent
literature is an iterative process – not least due to the serendipitous nature of
the process.
The map indicates the scope of antecedent literature incorporating a range of
bodies of literature. This provides a ‘‘flavour’’ for the research, showing how the
approach was influenced by existing theory. Outside of the boundary of the
core literature we draw more generic fields of literature, for example sociology
which, whilst not directly referenced in the literature search, may be influential
and informative to the research. An understanding of the broad literature, and
thus the context in which the research is being conducted, is important – it
helps relate the research carried out to that of other researchers in diverse
fields.
In addition to informing an understanding of the research topic, the
literature search is also intended to help address issues of contribution,
relevance and topicality. It is useful to reflect on the focus of research by asking
the following questions:
. What research already exists in the chosen topic?
. Is the theory of this topic well developed?
. Are there gaps in current research?
. Will the research be applied or fundamental research?
. Who will be the customers of the research?
. Is the topic of current concern to managers?
. Is the topic of current concern to researchers?
. Is the topic of current concern to policy leaders and funding bodies?
In many ways the answer to these questions can only be clarified through
literature study and interviewing key actors in the academic, managerial and
policy arena. But of course, it is rare for anyone to chose a research topic
without having some familiarity with the topic area, either through previous
academic studies or first-hand experiences. In addition, the research supervisor
or sponsor may play a major role in guiding the direction of the study.
However, academic research is dependent upon the researcher having a clear
critical knowledge of the literature, which in essence means being able to
identify why the research addresses gaps in existing knowledge.
In addition to mapping existing questions, identification of how specific
phenomena have been researched will help in a number of ways:
. Previous research and theory is necessary under most circumstances to
help build up a detailed knowledge of current understanding of the
phenomena.
. Previous research and existing theory may well give good insights into
dominant methods for exploring the chosen phenomena.
. Previous research may have been dominated by certain research
paradigms.
. Knowledge of previous research and theory will give a very clear insight
into which constructs have been examined and which have not.
Naturally, mapping can only be developed after some time studying the
literature. Experience shows that there is a critical mass of literature that needs
to be critiqued before such mapping is feasible – although again this may be
based on previous knowledge of the area or the supervisor’s guidance. In fact
we find that it is useful to revisit such maps frequently in order to validate the
critique, and also to provide a focus for debate within the research team – or at
least with the research supervisor. It is important to emphasise that this
mapping is designed to focus the development of the research question, and
thus the literature review should be considered as a process of refinement
throughout much of the research programme.
Often doctoral researchers in particular become concerned about the
originality and contribution of their research very early in their research.
Originality per se relates not only to the topic of the research but also to the
methodology chosen. By mapping the literature it is possible to gain an insight
into where the research may fit into existing knowledge. Indeed, by exploring phenomena using methods rarely demonstrated in the existing literature
valuable insights into issues of context and contingency are often exposed.
One of the more common problems in validating the literature in a particular
field of research arises because research is rarely, if ever, value free. For this
reason, when critically reviewing the literature it is important to classify
papers, articles, reports, texts, Web-media, etc. according to some form of
evaluation of the research focus of the paper. The first category in any
classification scheme is naturally to identify the topic and purpose of the paper,
yet we need further to qualify the quality and character of the literature. For
example, do the authors claim that the paper is a report of a theory-building or
theory-testing piece of research? From this, classification of the method or
methods employed offers a valuable insight into the perspective of the
researcher, the purpose of the research, and the nature of the validity of the
research findings.
A classification of the literature aids the researcher in the identification of
the dominant themes in the canon, and informs an awareness of both key gaps
in the literature and existing research approaches. An ability to demonstrate a
thorough awareness of current research, and the gaps in terms of subject and
methodology, are important concerns for all researchers, but are vital for
doctoral researchers in terms of locating their work and identifying the
contribution of their research.
Management
Survey research in operations
management: a process-based
perspective
Cipriano Forza
Keywords Operations management,
Methodology, Surveys, Research,
Empirical study, Quality
This paper provides guidelines for the design
and execution of survey research in operations
management (OM). The specific requirements
of survey research aimed at gathering and
analysing data for theory testing are
contrasted with other types of survey
research. The focus is motivated by the need
to tackle the various issues which arise in the
process of survey research. The paper does not
intend to be exhaustive: its aim is to guide the
researcher, presenting a systematic picture
which synthesises suitable survey practices
for research in an OM context. The
fundamental aim is to contribute to an
increase in the quality of OM research and,
as a consequence, to the status of the OM
discipline among the scientific community.
Case research in operations
management
Chris Voss, Nikos Tsikriktsis and Mark Frohlich
Keywords Operations management,
Research, Methodology, Case studies
This paper reviews the use of case study
research in operations management for theory
development and testing. It draws on the
literature on case research in a number of
disciplines and uses examples drawn from
operations management research. It provides
guidelines and a roadmap for operations
management researchers wishing to design,
develop and conduct case-based research.
Action research for operations
management
Paul Coughlan and David Coghlan
Keywords Operations management,
Action research, Mehtodology
A fundamental methodological question
guides this paper: How can operations
managers and researchers learn from the
applied activity that characterises the
practice of operations management (OM)? To
address this question, defines and explores
the legitimacy of an action-oriented research
approach in OM, and the particular logic and
value of applying action research (AR) to the
description and understanding of issues in
OM. Begins with a review of the role of
empirical research in OM and how action
research features within the OM research
literature. Introduces the theory and practice
of AR; outlines of the AR cycle and how
action research is implemented. Finally,
describes the skills required to engage in
AR and explores issues in generating theory.
Conclude with the assertion that AR is
relevant and valid for the discipline of OM
in its ability to address the operational
realities experienced by practising managers
while simultaneously contributing to
knowledge.
Operations management research
methodologies using quantitative
modeling
J. Will M. Bertrand and Jan C. Fransoo
Keywords Operations management,
Methodology, Operational research, Research,
Quantitative modelling
Gives an overview of quantitative model-based
research in operations management, focusing
on research methodology. Distinguishes
between empirical and axiomatic research,
and furthermore between descriptive and
normative research. Presents guidelines for
doing quantitative model-based research in
operations management. In constructing
arguments, builds on learnings from
operations research and operat ions
management research from the past decades
and on research from a selected number of
other academic disciplines. Concludes that the
methodology of quantitative model-driven
empirical research offers a great opportunity
for operations management researchers to
further advance theory.
The articles in the present special issue
Many comments on the articles are already made in the context of a common
aim for all the articles. However, there are some specific comments on
individual articles that are useful to know before they are read.
Simon Croom starts the program sequence with topic issues and
methodological concerns for OM research. He takes the researcher through a
comprehensive process of planning a research activity. His approach is
summarized at the end of this guest editorial. It is different from the articles not
only in the sense that it does not deal with one of our four approaches, but also
that is more basic than the others. This text is more aimed at the younger
researcher planning, for example, a PhD research project. That is the role of
this part in the EDEN program but hopefully it will also offer a comprehensive
summary of the issues and choices that any researcher should consider in the
planning phase. An important aspect is to make the potential contribution
clear. Simon Croom is talking about positioning your research. I want to stress
the aspect, having rejected endless manuscripts that were without contribution
to knowledge in the field but only to knowledge of the author. He also takes us
through a condensed outline of a research process. It is our hope that this brief
introduction will stimulate the researcher to deeper pondering over the issues.
Cipriano Forza addresses the first of the different approaches with his article
‘‘Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective’’.
This is a long and, for some, may be heavy piece. This is for two reasons. It
serves, as already stated, as a basis for all the approaches. It is not that much
about statistics. There is a lot to pick up from the well-organized survey in
whatever type of research we do. Also this is really ‘‘a process-based
perspective’’ where Cipriano Forza has carefully followed the aim of this issue
of a step-by-step approach. Sorting out a theoretical model in the planning
phase is but one of the important aspects of doing research well. Sampling and
design of questions are generally important. The final discussion is on what we
can and should report and how to do it. Throughout the article there is effort to
provide solutions to common shortcomings of survey research in OM.
Chris Voss, Nikos Tsikriktsis and Mark Frohlich write on ‘‘Case research in
operations management’’. Case research is certainly a major approach in OM
research of today. There are many good reasons. It is an excellent way of
getting deep into a phenomenon, exploring issues and being able to generate
hypotheses of different kinds. The results often have a high attraction value
among practitioners who want to learn from others’ cases and do not care much
for statistical relevance of large samples, knowing that each organization is
different anyway. There are drawbacks such as time and resource consumption
and a criticism that we keep exploring and do not reach theory building. The
authors have highlighted the important aspects of planning and carrying
through case research and I especially want to point at factors that make this
approach reliable research, and not just industrial tourism. Systematic
development of research instruments and protocols is one aspect but most important and well developed in the article is the systematic treatment of data
including coding and doing the analyses.
Paul Coughlan and David Coghlan have contributed action research for
operations management. There may seem to be little difference between a case
study and an action research project since one may say that the action research
is done in a case. However, there is a clear divider in the sequence of articles
here. The purpose in action research is to interfere and take action, not only to
study. Coughlan and Coghlan discuss what is typical for action research and
when it can be used. A very important concept is that of repeated cycles of data
gathering, data feedback, data analysis, action planning, implementation and
evaluation. It is research in action with researchers in action. Almost by
definition this will also often be single case longitudinal field research. It takes
not only time but also experienced researchers. There are incomparable
potential benefits of deep insight also on causality and the possibilities of
experiments on the field are rather unique. This will well compensate for
criticism for lack of generalizability. If well carried through it is not a form of
consulting by academics either: consultants solve problems with existing
knowledge; we develop new knowledge if we do action research well.
Will Bertrand and Jan Fransoo complete the set of articles with ‘‘Operations
management research methodologies using quantitative modeling’’. I believe
that this approach fits in well first or last. It can be seen as a way of developing
a conceptual framework as well as testing problem solutions in real life
situations. This text is not on constructing complicated mathematical formulae
in an attempt to describe a real-life process in an algorithm. Relations between
operations research and OM are discussed rather thoroughly. This is an
understanding the potential alternative role of a model in conceptualisation,
and problem solving. The article is meant to assist each researcher, regardless
of approach in thinking of the problem, how to conceptualise it, and how to
validate the model that has been created explicitly or implicitly.
Final remarks
Reflections on the complete special issue
There are many concluding remarks that can be made on an attempt such as
this to cover ‘‘everything’’ in research methodology in OM without getting
down to a basic textbook and not able to reach only unique contributions to
knowledge. It is my hope that dealing in a comprehensive manner with the total
perspective will be a contribution to good practice of research in our field. It is
quite evident from this project that few researchers have that combination of
width and breadth in their research skill. At least that is evident for the authors
and the editor. The experienced reviewers have also been very careful in
defining their area and limitations of unique competence. For each article there
has been three rounds of review: an editor round; an ‘‘internal’’ contributors
round; and an external reviewer round, with at least three internationally
renowned researchers as reviewers for each article. A real challenge has been to
embrace the different perspectives on what is good research. Rather than compromising too much I, together with the authors, have tried to deal with
more or less all the critical remarks. Only one issue has not been possible to
follow completely. When the divisions have become too clear I have gone in the
direction of perspectives established in a combination of constructivist and
European context rather than in a positivist and US context. We in Europe
seem to be less controlled by the history of thought in production management
and more influenced by sociological and other roots in the behavioural sciences.
Before you proceed with reading this special issue and doing your research I
want to share with you one of my dogmas. Methodology is there to make it
credible to the reader that you have planned and carried through your study as
well as analysed and drawn conclusions in a way that we can rely on what you
write. It is not a section of the text where you excel in your favourite
methodological considerations or demonstrate that you read some literature on
methodology. The idea is quality assurance in research.
Thanks to authors and reviewers
I want to thank all who have contributed to this special issue – most of all, of
course, the authors for the present texts but also the head authors in each
article who have been the faculty in the EDEN program and developed the
complete concept together with me. Then, of course, I would like to thank all
the many reviewers who have done an excellent and substantial job and who
we have exploited by using their remarks without being able to name them
here. Feel honoured; we have stolen your thinking with pride.
Methodology editorial
On planning the research
The process of research
Here we set out to present the research process using a normative framework.
Whilst in practice we freely admit that the process of research is quite chaotic,
involving re-iteration between the various stages of the process, by means of
introduction we feel it is useful to examine a simple normative model of the
process in order to examine the various elements of a research programme.
Howard and Sharp (1983, p. 14) proposed a simplified process model
representing a systematic approach to research (Gill and Johnson (1991, p. 3),
presented this as a developmental sequence). Bryman (1988, p. 20) also
presented a similar model as an example of the logic of the quantitative
research process. Bryman’s normative model of the research process sets out
seven generic stages, and here we have posed the key questions addressed at
each stage, which we will explore in further detail through this article:
(1) Identify a broad area of study. Based on the mapping of the literature,
what is the general area of research?
(2) Select the research topic. Having an idea of the possible gaps in the
literature, and issues raised elsewhere, what is the central research
question?
(3) Decide the approach. What is the general philosophical position of the
research?
(4) Formulate the plan. What is the project plan, or research design?
(5) Collect the data or information. Based on the philosophical position,
what quantitative and/or qualitative data should be collected?
(6) Analyse and interpret the data. What methods of analysis are being
applied to quantitative and qualitative data analysis?
(7) Present the findings. Are the findings supportable? In other words, are
they valid?
Whilst this sequence is appropriate to a logical/rational problem-solving
situation, Gill and Johnson (1991, p. 3) cite Bechhofer’s (1974, p. 73) warning
that ‘‘. . . the research process is not a clear-cut sequence of procedures
following a neat pattern but a messy interaction between the conceptual and
empirical world, deduction and induction occurring at the same time’’. This is
acknowledged by Lazarsfeld (1958), who claims that although the research is
frequently chaotic and iterative, one can nonetheless identify four clearly
distinct elements or phases to the process.
His schema takes the first stage as imagery, in which researchers, having
‘‘. . . immersed themselves in the detail of a problem’’ (Lazarsfeld, 1958, p. 101)
create a construct, which at this stage may be rather simplistic and tentative.
The second stage is concept specification. This stage deals with the initial
construct by dividing it into its components. Lazarsfeld cites as an example
the division of ‘‘efficiency’’ into constituent elements such as speed, good
products and careful handling of the machines. The third stage is the
selection of indicators. Depending on the components of interest, and the
nature of the research paradigm, measures may be broadly obtained through
observation, simulation or perception. The fourth stage is the formation of
indices. Combining indicators and evaluating the relationships between them
is, in essence, the purpose of theory. Again, taking the example of
‘‘efficiency’’, typical indices that may be developed would relate speed to
defect rate, or alternatively relate utilisation of machines to defect rates of
products.
How to identify gaps, anomalies and contradictions in the literature
As the field of operations management (OM) has broadened to incorporate
topics such as new product development, supply chain management,
organisational change and enterprise system strategy, it has been necessary to
look beyond the ‘‘traditional’’ OM literature in order to gain insights into
existing research, theories and hypotheses. Classification of the literature as a
means of developing an understanding of the relevance and contribution of a
source is a necessary requirement for academic research. Here, it is useful to
position research in terms of its utilisation of existing theories, and
subsequently to identify clearly the contribution of the research to areas of
theory by mapping the literature field.
Mapping the antecedent literature is useful for clarifying how to frame
research questions. It is important to note that the identification of antecedent
literature is an iterative process – not least due to the serendipitous nature of
the process.
The map indicates the scope of antecedent literature incorporating a range of
bodies of literature. This provides a ‘‘flavour’’ for the research, showing how the
approach was influenced by existing theory. Outside of the boundary of the
core literature we draw more generic fields of literature, for example sociology
which, whilst not directly referenced in the literature search, may be influential
and informative to the research. An understanding of the broad literature, and
thus the context in which the research is being conducted, is important – it
helps relate the research carried out to that of other researchers in diverse
fields.
In addition to informing an understanding of the research topic, the
literature search is also intended to help address issues of contribution,
relevance and topicality. It is useful to reflect on the focus of research by asking
the following questions:
. What research already exists in the chosen topic?
. Is the theory of this topic well developed?
. Are there gaps in current research?
. Will the research be applied or fundamental research?
. Who will be the customers of the research?
. Is the topic of current concern to managers?
. Is the topic of current concern to researchers?
. Is the topic of current concern to policy leaders and funding bodies?
In many ways the answer to these questions can only be clarified through
literature study and interviewing key actors in the academic, managerial and
policy arena. But of course, it is rare for anyone to chose a research topic
without having some familiarity with the topic area, either through previous
academic studies or first-hand experiences. In addition, the research supervisor
or sponsor may play a major role in guiding the direction of the study.
However, academic research is dependent upon the researcher having a clear
critical knowledge of the literature, which in essence means being able to
identify why the research addresses gaps in existing knowledge.
In addition to mapping existing questions, identification of how specific
phenomena have been researched will help in a number of ways:
. Previous research and theory is necessary under most circumstances to
help build up a detailed knowledge of current understanding of the
phenomena.
. Previous research and existing theory may well give good insights into
dominant methods for exploring the chosen phenomena.
. Previous research may have been dominated by certain research
paradigms.
. Knowledge of previous research and theory will give a very clear insight
into which constructs have been examined and which have not.
Naturally, mapping can only be developed after some time studying the
literature. Experience shows that there is a critical mass of literature that needs
to be critiqued before such mapping is feasible – although again this may be
based on previous knowledge of the area or the supervisor’s guidance. In fact
we find that it is useful to revisit such maps frequently in order to validate the
critique, and also to provide a focus for debate within the research team – or at
least with the research supervisor. It is important to emphasise that this
mapping is designed to focus the development of the research question, and
thus the literature review should be considered as a process of refinement
throughout much of the research programme.
Often doctoral researchers in particular become concerned about the
originality and contribution of their research very early in their research.
Originality per se relates not only to the topic of the research but also to the
methodology chosen. By mapping the literature it is possible to gain an insight
into where the research may fit into existing knowledge. Indeed, by exploring phenomena using methods rarely demonstrated in the existing literature
valuable insights into issues of context and contingency are often exposed.
One of the more common problems in validating the literature in a particular
field of research arises because research is rarely, if ever, value free. For this
reason, when critically reviewing the literature it is important to classify
papers, articles, reports, texts, Web-media, etc. according to some form of
evaluation of the research focus of the paper. The first category in any
classification scheme is naturally to identify the topic and purpose of the paper,
yet we need further to qualify the quality and character of the literature. For
example, do the authors claim that the paper is a report of a theory-building or
theory-testing piece of research? From this, classification of the method or
methods employed offers a valuable insight into the perspective of the
researcher, the purpose of the research, and the nature of the validity of the
research findings.
A classification of the literature aids the researcher in the identification of
the dominant themes in the canon, and informs an awareness of both key gaps
in the literature and existing research approaches. An ability to demonstrate a
thorough awareness of current research, and the gaps in terms of subject and
methodology, are important concerns for all researchers, but are vital for
doctoral researchers in terms of locating their work and identifying the
contribution of their research.
Comments