1. Richard Thorpe BAM Conference – Portsmouth - September 2015

2. Doctoral Work Ref: drawn from March and Birch – the nature of Scholarship Scholarly work Recognised by others working in a similar area Original Takes a different angle Adopts a different methodology Provides a different explanation Situated Is located with knowledge of other literatures Critically reflexive Of other literatures Of its own limitations Of the theories generated Logically consistent Is not internally contradictory Methodologically coherent Methods and data collection and analysis support the aims and objectives Offers a critically informed rationale for the selection of particular methods Synthesis Provides a synthesis of theory and data Audience Addresses primarily an academic rather than a practitioner audience

3. What does a Ph.D. contain? Contribution to knowledge BSC, MSc, Ph.D. Pattern Recognition Generalisability Realism of Context (problem Set) Replicability Training in research To perfect a Methodology BEING ‘SCIENTIFIC’ COMES NOT FROM WHAT YOU STUDY AND WHAT YOU DO WITH IT BUT THE METHODOLOGY. Implications for policy and or practice Dissemination, pathways to impact Impact ? Benefits Knowledge transfer Developed within the thesis but explicitly articulated within the conclusions with some confidence (candidates often find this difficult for students to do

4. Coherence– disciplines and paradigms Views differ on what constitutes proper research Different disciplines within the field of management do take a different emphasis Different stakeholders value different styles Unilateral –vs- collaborative (coproduction) Investigate – vs – Discover Realist vs constructionist (ontology) Multidisciplinary research often encounters conflict of styles and these can lead to discussions about coherence

5. Mixed Methods? Reconnecting with Ontological and Epistemological Commitments

6. What is being mixed? Is it method within one family (Qualitative or quantitative) or... Between families (Qualitative and quantitative data) or..... Between epistemologies How data is being assembled - data collection e.g. Triangulation (different perspectives on the same issue) or.. In the facilitation (the sequence; which dominates) or are methods Filling gaps? Analysis Cross dressing – using quantitative data from essentially qualitative studies It often depends on what is being mixed.......

7. POSITIVISM, CONSTRUCTIONISM and MIXED

8. Ontology and Epistemology

9. Epistemology and Methodology POSITIVISM CONSTRUCTIONISM Positivism / Constructionism

10. POSITIVISM Epistemology ‘Hard’ POSITIVISM AimsDiscovery Starting pointsHypothesis DesignsExperiments Data typesNumbers & data AnalysisVerification & Falsification OutcomesConfirm theories

11. Positivism / Constructionism EpistemologySoft Positivism Soft Constructionism AimsExposureConvergence Starting pointsPropositionsQuestions DesignsLarge surveysCases & small surveys Data typesNumbers and words Words and numbers AnalysisCorrelationTriangulation OutcomesTest and generate theories Theory generation

12. CONSTRUCTIONISM Epistemology‘Hard’ CONSTRUCTIONISM AimsInvention Starting pointsCritique DesignsEngagement Data typesWords; experiences AnalysisSense making; understanding OutcomesInsights and actions

13. For: Richer results; more credibility; explaining why; depth and breadth; longitudinal and cross-sectional; [OK] Just in case Between epistemologies Against: Ontological incompatibility; conflicting purposes Issues for and against mixed methods

14. You need to be aware of consistency in epistemologies both as a judge and when you yourself are being judged. Its probably OK to mix weak epistemologies, provided you indicate your awareness of what you are doing. Beware of 50/50 studies, its probably better to lead with one and add value to the study with the other. Its probably the case that hard epistemologies can’t be mixed It is also probably the case that adjacent ontologies can be mixed but no further? Some thoughts on the issue of mixed methods

15. What is scholarship? Research is not collecting data and packaging a solution it is justifying your results and explaining why you chose to go down one route rather than another. Research substantiates, regulates, organises or generates our theories and produces evidence which may challenge our own beliefs and those of society in general (May, 1993)

16. GOOD TRUTHBEAUTY USE

17. Other Issues Offering evidence of the quality of the data, including caveats Use of personal voice to bring into the thesis a reflective or reflexive dimension Consider the innovative nature of the work -high dives and low dives

18. Stephen Toulmin and Argument Analysis

19. Issues related to the oral defence Firstly the forms* (university of Leeds –PhD) That the degree of PhD be awarded That, subject to minor editorial corrections, the degree of PhD be awarded That, subject to the correction of stated minor deficiencies, the degree of PhD be awarded That the application be referred for resubmission for the degree of PhD * Caveat: Institutions differ considerably in their regulations

20. Its good practice to ask for a mock viva To get attuned and used to answering questions To get used to answering questions you didn’t know were issues Get an early insight into any potential gaps or weaknesses in in the thesis in advance

21. What you might do before the oral defence Re-read the thesis Consider the contribution to knowledge PhD in the field of X Where the gap lies What I’ve done is ? And addressed abc and found xyz And this has implications for 1,2,3... Prepare your John Humphrey test

22. Oral defence Standing your ground Don’t defend the indefensible That got me thinking.... I’ve never thought of it in that way...... There are different processes in operation The role of the internal and external with and without a panel Chairs Video