Research Thought Bubble #1: Thoughts on the Carnegie-Mellon e-Sourcing Capability Model
I won't go on and say that I know the literature on eSCM or anything that has to do with management. All I have is a free PowerPoint presentation on the model here. The heart of this model is on how managers manage people (well, duh), delegate tasks, and the protocols involved in setting goals, motivating your employees, and maintaining quality output. So far, it doesn't sound so different from the literature out there on leadership and managing people. The theory...errr, framework is quite general and has many quantifiable concepts that do need to be put to the test. For example, you could try and verify the model's claim that motivated employees and good people-centered management predicts the efficient production of quality services. There are many ways to take the model apart and measure different aspects of it.
Although I'd prefer to exercise a positivist orientation in the research project that I am currently involved in, I have been asked to help analyze qualitative research data. I have around 13 transcripts with me, each containing answers to semi-structured questions based on the model. Aye, there's the rub. The nature of qualitative inquiries are not grounded in theory. This means that they MUST be exploratory in nature. Rather than it being hypothetico-deductive, it is inductive in nature with the researcher arriving at "...post hoc conclusions" (see this link). You may be able to describe a phenomena in great detail (see Phenomenological research) or you may construct a theory (see Grounded Theory). Each qualitative research design requires the researcher to adapt a frame of mind grounded on an epistemology (are you a subjectivist or a constructivist?), layered over by a research design (narrative analysis, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, and so on), and then followed by a research method: do you simply stop after performing structural analysis or is your method of gathering and analyzing data iterative? In essence, qualitative research appears to be deceptively simple and seems to be simpler than opting for statistical data analysis (wherein there is so much strange jargon that looks deceptively complicated). So it looks like my next few days will be my life spent reading through 13++ transcripts and trying to lead my employer towards a simpler qualitative research design (ie: narrative analysis), or the likelihood of him shifting his epistemological stance into an empirical one *crosses fingers*.
I've read through the transcripts (errr, skimmed through them for the 2nd time) and man, if ever I get to meet Participant 1, I'd probably punch the lights out of this dude for giving such vague and jargon-filled answers. Really, if you don't know how to answer the question, it doesn't hurt to admit that you don't know how to answer the question! Haaaay!
Anyway, I've found that most of them do not really answer the question(s). I don't really blame them. If I were asked 4 different questions in one go, I'd probably make up random pompous sounding BS (like Participant 1). I'd also want to impress the person interviewing me too. I wouldn't want to look pathetic before a professional. There was also another participant who began every sentence with "So...". It totally threw me off track that the only thing my eyes shifted to were the other "so's" at the bottom of the page. I do love Parrticipants 9 to 13. They give clear answers, and they actually try to answer all 4 questions. I get the impression that they're probably the smarter ones in the bunch.
Out of all the questions asked, I've noticed that all participants reacted to the second question on "issues and concerns". Wow. It almost seemed like reading a confessional, and for once, I didn't feel like I did not understand anything (plus I actually found it interesting). The side of me that is fascinated with problems was really drawn to their answers. Also, these revealed the most about who they are as managers and the values they hold dear to them. Q2 was the meat of the interview! I could summarize all interviews into 4 super categories: TIME ISSUES, FINANCE ISSUES, LANGUAGE BARRIERS, and CULTURAL BARRIERS. Each super category can be broken down into overlapping subcategories: misaligned expectations(east vs. west), English comprehension (entendres), employee competence (young vs. old employees), managerial traits (risk-aversive?), and costs in transferring knowledge (too true in the world of IT).
Based on the categories that I have mentioned above, I guess I can leave my contractor to figure out where to go from here. Is there something more than the categories that I've mentioned above, and is it worth the time and effort? I have no idea what else is out there on the topic, and I'm banking on the thought that my contractor is an expert on the field. Otherwise, I think that it would be best to simply throw away the data and start from scratch.
Although I'd prefer to exercise a positivist orientation in the research project that I am currently involved in, I have been asked to help analyze qualitative research data. I have around 13 transcripts with me, each containing answers to semi-structured questions based on the model. Aye, there's the rub. The nature of qualitative inquiries are not grounded in theory. This means that they MUST be exploratory in nature. Rather than it being hypothetico-deductive, it is inductive in nature with the researcher arriving at "...post hoc conclusions" (see this link). You may be able to describe a phenomena in great detail (see Phenomenological research) or you may construct a theory (see Grounded Theory). Each qualitative research design requires the researcher to adapt a frame of mind grounded on an epistemology (are you a subjectivist or a constructivist?), layered over by a research design (narrative analysis, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, and so on), and then followed by a research method: do you simply stop after performing structural analysis or is your method of gathering and analyzing data iterative? In essence, qualitative research appears to be deceptively simple and seems to be simpler than opting for statistical data analysis (wherein there is so much strange jargon that looks deceptively complicated). So it looks like my next few days will be my life spent reading through 13++ transcripts and trying to lead my employer towards a simpler qualitative research design (ie: narrative analysis), or the likelihood of him shifting his epistemological stance into an empirical one *crosses fingers*.
I've read through the transcripts (errr, skimmed through them for the 2nd time) and man, if ever I get to meet Participant 1, I'd probably punch the lights out of this dude for giving such vague and jargon-filled answers. Really, if you don't know how to answer the question, it doesn't hurt to admit that you don't know how to answer the question! Haaaay!
Anyway, I've found that most of them do not really answer the question(s). I don't really blame them. If I were asked 4 different questions in one go, I'd probably make up random pompous sounding BS (like Participant 1). I'd also want to impress the person interviewing me too. I wouldn't want to look pathetic before a professional. There was also another participant who began every sentence with "So...". It totally threw me off track that the only thing my eyes shifted to were the other "so's" at the bottom of the page. I do love Parrticipants 9 to 13. They give clear answers, and they actually try to answer all 4 questions. I get the impression that they're probably the smarter ones in the bunch.
Out of all the questions asked, I've noticed that all participants reacted to the second question on "issues and concerns". Wow. It almost seemed like reading a confessional, and for once, I didn't feel like I did not understand anything (plus I actually found it interesting). The side of me that is fascinated with problems was really drawn to their answers. Also, these revealed the most about who they are as managers and the values they hold dear to them. Q2 was the meat of the interview! I could summarize all interviews into 4 super categories: TIME ISSUES, FINANCE ISSUES, LANGUAGE BARRIERS, and CULTURAL BARRIERS. Each super category can be broken down into overlapping subcategories: misaligned expectations(east vs. west), English comprehension (entendres), employee competence (young vs. old employees), managerial traits (risk-aversive?), and costs in transferring knowledge (too true in the world of IT).
Based on the categories that I have mentioned above, I guess I can leave my contractor to figure out where to go from here. Is there something more than the categories that I've mentioned above, and is it worth the time and effort? I have no idea what else is out there on the topic, and I'm banking on the thought that my contractor is an expert on the field. Otherwise, I think that it would be best to simply throw away the data and start from scratch.