2.1.1 The philosophy & fundamentals of the methodological design
Any research can be perceived as a process that starts from the conceptualization of a problem and gradually builds understanding with the aim of providing an answer- solution to it (Morse, 2003:189). It stands to reason that there is no such thing as a single best way to conduct research, since the suitability of the methodological approach to be followed depends on various factors (i.e. Sogunro, 2002; Tuli, 2011).
With this absence of an “one size fits all” solution in mind, the researcher has to take plenty of decisions throughout the process, which, needs to be made under a set of unique rules that ensure consistency of scientific logic (Remenyi & Williams, 1995) so that sound research with robust results can be produced (Jonker & Pennink, 2009:22). On this basis, figure 5 illustrates, in a pyramidal form, the questions, and their answers, that drove the methodological design of this work.
To start with, it is essential to discuss the philosophical paradigm by which the researcher abides, so that the reader can have an understanding of its influence on the research process (Morgan, 1979). The researcher shares the phenomenological assumptions of constructivism, which, generally speaking, advocates that (social) reality is inter-subjectively constructed though a dynamic process of continuous interactive deliberation (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Morgan & Smircich, 1980; see also
interpretivism in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011:10; and Jayanti’s, 2011 analysis on constructivism & postpositivism). As a result, it is assumed that universals and absolute truths do not exist (ontological paradigm), as reality is a particular that is defined, and thus perceived as such, by how individuals think and act in a specific point in time and space (nominalism: Gonzalo, 2015). On this basis, constructivism and the concept of subjectivity influenced not only the logic according to which theoretical and practical data were analysed and interpreted, but also the entire philosophical underpinnings of the work. Characteristically, as it will be made clear throughout the work, the whole argument on why leaders do not perceive as well as commit to change was based on the idea of an ego-driven reality that is subjectively constructed based on the emotional experience of the individual.
Figure 5. The methodological design & the main questions Coding:
Jonker & Pennink (2009:23); Kriaras (1995)-Etymology Morgan (1979)
S oc ial Te chnica l Research needs & question
Hammersley (1996); Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004); O'Leary (2004:24); Jarvinen (2000)
Nominalism - Constructivist: Reality is subjectively co-
constructed Mixed-method approach (Qualitative dominant) for theory
Development
A. Conceptual interdisciplinary research
B. Formative evaluation research A. Literature review, Philosophical research & Disciplined imagination
B. Experts’ opinion, Literature review, Gap analysis
A. Various Databases (i.e ProQuest, Science direct, EBSCO, etc.), Google Scholar, Mind Maps &
Conceptual diagrams, Open Discussions, Office (Word- Excel –
Visio) & Mendeley
B. Everything included in A + Likert scale questionnaires
Researcher’s choices
Methodology What are the framework &
underpinning “logic” according to which methods
are deployed? Methods
What are the methods used? Techniques
What are the tools used to support the methods?
Paradigm What is researcher’s world view?
At the same time, it is important to take into consideration that, while the paradigm is essential for every aspect of the research (i.e. Guba & Lincoln, 1994), flexibility regarding the design and application of a research (methodological question- assumptions) should be sought (Brannen, 2005). More precisely, when it comes to develop a methodological design it is also essential to consider the research question and the general requirements imposed by the work itself (i.e. Sogunro, 2002; Tuli, 2011; Jarvinen, 2000; O'Leary, 2004:24). This enables researchers to capture the potential of mixed method approaches, like the one followed in this work.
Within the scope of this research, therefore, a highly qualitative dominant mixed method approach was followed. This allowed, under general qualitatively oriented thinking, which is advocated by constructivism (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004),
quantitative characteristics (e.g. the use of propositions for verification/falsification: Guba & Lincoln, 1994) to influence the underpinning logic (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). The mixed method facilitated the development of a flexible research design, which on the one hand was, to the extent that this is possible, free of restrictions imposed by the researcher’s predetermined philosophical assumptions (Hammersley, 1996), and on the other hand ensured robust solutions to the research questions
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The following section provides a general introduction to the methodological design.
2.1.2 Introducing the process & the appropriate methodologies
During the very first steps of this research, the need for a mixed method approach that would enable the development and testing of a new theory was apparent (Creswell, 2009:49). A review of the methodologies for building theories (cf. Torraco, 2004)
indicated that none of them could entirely capture the special conditions that characterize this research. Consequently, the need for a new customized approach emerged. For that reason, Lynham’s (2002) generic method for applied theory-building research (black boxes fig.6) was linked (black discontinuous arrows fig.6) with
Bourner’s (2002) four basic steps of any research journey, in order to create a general guiding process (claret boxes fig.6) according to which specific methods can be logically deployed (claret discontinuous arrows fig.6). It should be noted that any choice for developing the methodological design was taken under the general logic that there are no right or wrong research methodologies but only more or less useful ones
Figure 6. A process for building & testing interdisciplinary theories
The first phase refers to the conceptualization of the theoretical understanding, which includes the review of the relevant literature as well as the development of an initial theory (Bourner, 2002; Lynham, 2002). When the research problem was analysed it was clear that any potential solution was going to lie beyond the borders of the change management field. In these cases, interdisciplinary researches become useful methods, since they bring closer ideas that lie in distinct and isolated disciplines and fields of study (Rhoten & Parker, 2004). The researcher, therefore, utilized Repko’s (2006) step- based model, which is a synthesis of previous approaches to interdisciplinary research, in order to interpret and (meta)-synthesize already generated theoretical insights and interrelations (Walsh & Downe, 2005) from various disciplines and, thereby, produce an interdisciplinary understanding of the problem and its potential solution (Aboelela, et al. 2007). Essentially, the ultimate aim was to develop relations among the different disciplinary constructs and generate a new conceptual theory that is logical and internally consistent (Wacker, 1998).
Conceptual Development Operationalization Confirmation & Disconfirmation Application Starting point Reviewing the field(s) Theory Building Theory Testing Theory Testing Reflection & Integration Conceptual interdisciplinary research Case Study Coding: Lynham (2002)
“Ongoing Refinement and Development” It is illustrated by the dynamic continuous arrows
Bourner (2002)
Refer to Sec. 2.2 Refer to ch.11
Theoretical Practical Formative evaluation
research
The operationalization phase is the stage of the theorization process that links theory and practice (Lynham, 2002). On the one hand, it refers to the conceptualization of the accumulated theoretical understanding in a model-framework that is accompanied by specific and testable propositions (Lynham, 2002). Of course, the produced model is not a static outcome of a separate stage of theorization, but it reflects the dynamic and continuous modelling of the researched phenomenon (feedback loops in fig.6), which, essentially, is an inextricable aspect of the entire process of the interdisciplinary theory formulation (Schwaninger & Groesser, 2008). Through a set of questions (see fig.8)
the researcher could reflect on the theory’s internal consistency and, thus, validity and logic (Wacker, 1998). In addition, internal validity of a theoretical systematic review of existing knowledge is established based on the rigour and robustness of the approach that is followed (i.e. Bigby & Williams, 2008). The interdisciplinary research will be graphically illustrated and explicitly analysed, along with guidelines for reassuring validity, in the following sections.
At the same time, the operationalization phase includes the step of theory testing
(Bourner, 2002), during which the final version of the model and the captured within it theoretical understanding are evaluated so that external validity can be established
(Holton & Lowe, 2007). For the needs of testing the theory, a research design based on the methodological paradigm of “formative evaluation" that aimed to assess the logic of the proposed model (Patton, 1988), as well as identify areas for improvement before it is put into practice (Beyer, 1995), was adopted (q.v. ch.9). As a result, a formative evaluation research was designed and integrated with the interdisciplinary research so that a mixed dynamic design of a developmental type could be built (Development design: Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989). That is, the results of the interdisciplinary research guided the design of the formative evaluation one which in its turn revised the interdisciplinary framework and so on. This process will complete the confirmation and disconfirmation phase (Lynham, 2002), and is expected to deliver a robust theoretical model-framework that is ready for practical application and potential revision in future research (q.v. ch.11).