1. CREATING NEW BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE Björn Bjerke e-mail: bjorn.bjerke@ts.mah.se

2. TECHNIQUES METHODS METHODOLOGY

3. THERE ARE NO GENERALLY GOOD METHODS! WHAT IS A GOOD METHOD DEPENDS! ON WHAT?

4. ON THE PROBLEM? THE PROBLEM METHODS YES AS WELL AS NO!

5. THERE IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES US ALL HUMAN, I.E., OUR ULTIMATE IDEAS AND PRESUMPTIONS IN LIFE: WHAT IS REALITY ALL ABOUT? HOW DO WE LEARN THINGS? WHAT IS THE IDEA WITH CREATING NEW KNOWLEDGE? WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, BEAUTIFUL AND UGLY? EVERYBODY (INCL. CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE) HAVE SUCH ULTIMATE IDEAS AND PRESUMPTIONS. HOWEVER – IMPORTANT! – THEY CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY OR LOGICALLY TESTED OR PROVED!

6. ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS THE PROBLEM METHODS

7. BUT IS THIS NOT A VICIOUS CIRCLE – EVERYTHING SEEMS TO DEPEND ON EVERYTHING ELSE! NO, BECAUSE THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS ARE CHANGING AT DIFFERENT SPEED, SOMETIMES SLOWER, SOMETIMES FASTER – SOMETIMES NOT AT ALL! SO – IN PRACTICE

8. ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS THE PROBLEM METHODS

9. ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS PARADIGM ------------------ CONCEPTION OF REALITY CONCEPTION OF SCIENCE SCIENTIFIC IDEALS ETHICS/ AESTHETICS METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OPERATIVE PARADIGM ------------------ METHODICAL PROCEDURES METHODICS STUDY AREA THEORY OF SCIENCE METHODO- LOGY

10. IT STARTED WITH THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH

11. RESULT A +2 RESULT B +1 RESULT C +3 6 THE WHOLE + + =

12. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS: REALITY AND MODELS EXPLANATIONS, CAUSAL RELATIONS AND HYPOTHESES DEDUCTION, INDUCTION AND VERIFICATION OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS CETERIS PARIBUS

13. A B C D A B C YY CAUSES EFFECT PICTURE 1 PICTURE 2 PICTURE 1 EXPLAINS MORE THAN PICTURE 2

14. Z W X Y Z = BACKGROUND W = INTERVENING VARIABLE VARIABLE

15. INDUCTION DEDUCTION VERIFICATION FACTS FACTS THEORIES PREDICTIONS THEORETICAL WORLD EMPIRICAL WORLD

16. IT CONTINUED WITH THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

17. DOUBTS ABOUT POSSIBILITIES OF THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH INTER- DISCIPLINARY INTERESTS PROBLEM- ORIENTED SCIENCES THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

18. RESULT A +2 RESULT C +3 RESULT B +1 6 THE WHOLE SYNERGY!

19. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS: SYSTEM OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS MODELS AND REAL SYSTEMS MAGNIFYING LEVEL SYSTEMS STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS PROCESSES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION AND SYSTEMS THEORY

20. A D Y B C A Y B C PICTURE A PICTURE B PICTURE A EXPLAINS MORE THAN PICTURE B, BUT NOT IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT: C B A Y

21. P P1 P2 P3 PA PB PC P ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS ALTERNATIVE PRODUCERS MULTIFINALITY EQUIFINALITY

22. TODAY THE PICTURE IS MORE COMPLICATED

23. MEANING A MEANING B MEANING C STRUCTURE OF MEANING THE WHOLE = THE ACTORS APPROACH

24. REALITY CONSISTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROVINCES OF MEANING, WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS OVERLAPPING EACH OTHER:

25. THE BOOK OF LAW THE JUDGE THE OWNER OF THE PRINTER SHOP THE THIEF A SET OF A PROFITABLE ETHICAL BUSINESS A THREAT RULES

26. ACTOR 1 FINITE PROVINCE OF MEANING ACTOR 1 FINITE PROVINCE OF MEANING SOMEWHAT MODIFIED ACTOR 2 FINITE PROVINCE OF MEANING ACTOR 2 FINITE PROVINCE OF MEANING SOMEWHAT MODIFIED INTER- PRETATION INTER- PRETATION MEETS ANOTHER INTERPRETATION INTER- PRETATION INTER- PRETATION MEETS ANOTHER INTERPRETATION ETC DIAGNOSIS ACTS AND CHANGES AN UNDER- STANDING OF INDIVIDUAL ACTORS’ FINITE PROVINCES OF MEANING AND THEIR CHANGES IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IS NECESSARY

27. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS: INTENTIONALITY DIALOGUE DIALECTICS ACTORS OBSERVERS DIAGNOSIS LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

28. A SUMMARY SO FAR: THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH THE SYSTEMS APPROACH THE ACTORS APPROACH PREREQUISITES EXISTING ANALYTICAL THEORY VERIFIED/ FALSIFIED HYPOTHESES EXISTING SYSTEMS THEORY ANALOGIES (HOMOLOGIES) METATHEORIES CONSTITUTIONAL FACTORS GENERAL PRE- UNDERSTANDING INTERACTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERSTANDING EXPLAINING/ UNDERSTANDING CAUSALITYFINALITYDIALECTICS RESULTS PURE CAUSE- EFFECT RELATIONS LOGICAL MODELS REPRESENTATIVE CASES PARTLY UNIQUE CASES CLASSIFICATION MECHANISMS TYPICAL CASES DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGES IDEAL-TYPIFIED LANGUAGES EMANICIPATORY INTERACTIVE ACTION

29. METHODICAL PROCEDURES THE WAY IN WHICH TECHNIQUES ARE ADAPTED TO SUIT A GIVEN METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH A. SOME COMMON GROUPS OF TECHNIQUES 1. TECHNIQUES FOR SELECTING UNITS TO STUDY ANALYTICAL APPROACH * SELECTED UNITS SHOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEMS APPROACH * SELECTED UNITS SHOULD BE VERSATILE AND/OR INTERESTING ACTORS APPROACH * SELECTED UNITS COULD BE RECOMMENDED, PROBLEM-ORIENTED AND/OR INSIGHTFUL

30. 2. TECHNIQUES FOR COLLECTING DATA IN PRINCIPLE * SECONDARY DATA * PRIMARY DATA THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATIONS, INTERVIEWS AND/OR EXPERIMENTS ANALYTICAL APPROACH * USES THEM ALL SYSTEMS APPROACH * USES SECONDARY DATA (WHEN AVAILABLE) AND (PERSONAL) INTERVIEWS EXTENSIVELY * DOES NOT CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS ACTORS APPROACH * COLLECTS AS MUCH DATA AS POSSIBLE IN A DIALOGICAL SITUATION

31. 3. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY IN PRINCIPLE EXISTING SCALES: * NOMINAL SCALES * ORDINAL SCALES * INTERVAL SCALES * QUOTA SCALES RELIABILITY: CONSISTENT RESULTS VALIDITY: TRUE RESULTS (CONT.)

32. ANALYTICAL APPROACH THE MORE EXACT RESULTS, THE BETTER RELIABILITY AS WELL AS VALIDITY SHOULD ALWAYS BE CHECKED, IF POSSIBLE; SEVERAL TECHNIQUES FOR DOING SO AVAILABLE SYSTEMS APPROACH A MORE PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO MEASUREMENT RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY COULD BE IMPROVED BY: - LOOKING AT SYSTEMS FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSPECTIVE - TALKING TO MORE PEOPLE - CHECKING PRIMARY DATA AGAINST SECONDARY ONES ACTORS APPROACH MEANING CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY OBJECTIVE SENSE

33. B. SOME SPECIFIC GROUPS OF TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYTICAL APPROACH SAMPLING VALIDATION FOR SYSTEMS APPROACH HISTORICAL STUDIES CASE STUDIES FOR ACTORS APPROACH DIALOGUES LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENTS

34. METHODICS PLANNING AND CONDUCTING STUDIES AT LARGE THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH PLANNING THE STUDY DESIGNING METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA COLLECTING DATA CONTROLLING CAUSALITY CODING AND ARRANGING DATA REPORTING FORMULATING THE PROBLEM

35. THE SYSTEMS APPROACH FORMULATING POSSIBLE FINALITY RELATIONS PLANNING THE CONTINUATION DESIGNING METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA COLLECTING DATA REPORTING CONTROLLING FINALITY CODING AND ARRANGING DATA ARE YOU SATISFIED AS A CREATOR OF KNOW- LEDGE? YES NO FORMULATING THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING THE TYPE REAL SYSTEM

36. SOME DIFFERENCES FROM THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH: FORMULATING A PROBLEM IS MORE EXTENSIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CREATOR OF KNOWLEDGE AND REALITY ARE MUCH MORE INTENSIVE FEEDBACKS ARE MORE FREQUENT

37. THE ACTORS APPROACH METHODICS DIFFER WIDELY. COMMONLY INCLUDED PROCEDURES ARE: PROBLEMATIZATION DIALOGUES WITH LEADING ACTORS TRACING MEANING IN HISTORY SEARCHING FOR THE HISTORY OF MEANING AN INTERPLAY OF ENGAGEMENT AND DISSOCIATION DIAGNOSTICAL STOPS FREQUENT FEEDBACKS

38. WHAT ABOUT COMBINATIONS – SYNTHESES? COMMON, BUT (STRICTLY SPEAKING) ALL METHODS CHANGE WITH THE CONTEXT THREE COMMON TYPES: ANALYTICAL METHODS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT ACTORS METHODS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT SYSTEMS METHODS IN AN ACTORS CONTEXT

39. DIFFERENT KINDS OF CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE: THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPLAIN: LOOK FOR FACTUAL DATA (OBJECTIVE AND/OR SUBJECTIVE ONES) AND USE A PICTURING LANGUAGE WANT TO FIND CAUSAL PATTERNS BUILD MODELS THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND: DENY THAT FACTUAL AND PICTURING DATA EXIST (AT LEAST IN THE HUMAN WORLD) WANT TO BRING MEANING TO THE OPEN AND USE A PERFORMATIVE LANGUAGE MAKE INTERPRETATIONS

40. MODELS = DELIBERATELY SIMPLIFIED PICTURES OF FACTUAL REALITY INTERPRETATIONS = DELIBERATELY PROBLEMATIZED PICTURES OF SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED REALITY THOSE WHO TRY TO EXPLAIN NATURALLY TRY TO CONTRUCT MODELS – THOSE WHO TRY TO UNDERSTAND NATURALLY TRY TO COME UP WITH INTERPRETATIONS

41. EXPLAINING KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH THE SYSTEMS APPROACH THE ACTORS APPROACH

42. EXPLANATIONS: REGULAR SEQUENCES (CAUSE-EFFECT-RELATIONS) OVER TIME OF SUBSTANTIATED PHENOMENA MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL, LOGICAL AND CAUSAL CONNECTIONS EX: 1. HE STARTED A NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE HE IS AN ENTREPRENEUR! 2. HE STARTED A NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO CHANGE HIS LIFE! 3. HE STARTED A NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO MAKE MORE MONEY!

43. THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF EXPLANATIONS: EXPLANATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY ITSELF: 1. EXPLANATIONS BY CAUSE 2. EXPLANATIONS BY PURPOSE EXPLANATIONS OUTSIDE THE STUDY (IN THE SYSTEM?)

44. SOME PROBLEMS WITH EXPLANATORY CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE (LOOKED AT IT FROM AN UNDERSTANDER’S POINT OF VIEW): 1. DATA DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES; THEY HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE CREATOR OF KNOWLEDGE 2. HUMAN BEINGS (INCLUDING CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE) ARE PART OF A CULTURE – EVEN CONSTITUTE A CULTURE 3. SUCH RESULTS JUST SCRATCH THE SURFACE

45. UNDERSTANDING: IS ONLY VALID WHEN STUDYING HUMAN BEINGS FROM ONE HUMAN BEING TO ANOTHER WHEN INTENTIONALITY IS ACCEPTED

46. EXPLAINING UNDERSTANDING PICTURING CIRCUMSTANTIAL WORLD REACTING PEOPLE TO SIMPLIFY A COMPLICATED REALITY (MODELS) SPECIFIC GENERALIZATIONS PERFORMATIVE MEANINGFUL WORLD ACTING PEOPLE TO PROBLEMATIZE A SIMPLIFIED REALITY (INTERPRETATIONS) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

47. TO EXPLAIN TO UNDERSTAND STRUCTURES LANGUAGE PROCESSES CULTURE (LANGUAGE) (STRUCTURES) (CULTURE) (PROCESSES)

48. TO CREATE KNOWLEDGE IN PRACTICE: WHEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN: TESTING HYPOTHESES CONTRUCTING AND VALIDATING MODELS BY ALWAYS ELIMINATING FACTUAL IRRELEVANT FACTS AMONG DATA AND RESULTS EXISTING

49. WHEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND: DIG, DIG, DIG APPROACHING THE TOPIC FROM MANY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS – LOOKING FOR ”THE COMMON DENOMINATOR” EXTRACTING THE ACTORS’ OWN PICTURES OF REALITY BY ALWAYS ADDING ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES OUTSIDE DATA AND RESULTS EXISTING

50. JUDGING THE QUALITY OF KNOWLEDGE CREATED: REPRESENTATIVITY USEFULNESS MEANINGFULNESS EXPLAINING UNDERSTANDING