creating new business knowledge björn bjerke e-mail: [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
TECHNIQUES
METHODS
METHODOLOGY
THERE ARE NO GENERALLY GOOD METHODS!
WHAT IS A GOOD METHOD DEPENDS!
ON WHAT?
ON THE PROBLEM?
THE PROBLEM METHODS
YES AS WELL AS NO!
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!
ULTIMATEPRESUMPTIONS
THE PROBLEM
METHODS
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
ULTIMATEPRESUMPTIONS
THE PROBLEM
METHODS
ULTIMATE
PRESUMPTIONS
PARADIGM------------------•CONCEPTION OF REALITY•CONCEPTION OF SCIENCE•SCIENTIFIC IDEALS•ETHICS/ AESTHETICS
METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH
OPERATIVEPARADIGM------------------•METHODICAL PROCEDURES•METHODICS
STUDY
AREA
THEORYOF
SCIENCE
METHODO-LOGY
IT STARTED WITH
THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH
RESULT A +2
RESULT B +1
RESULT C +3
6
THE WHOLE
+
+
=
SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:
REALITY AND MODELS
EXPLANATIONS, CAUSAL RELATIONS AND HYPOTHESES
DEDUCTION, INDUCTION AND VERIFICATION
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
CETERIS PARIBUS
A
B
C
D
A
B
CY Y
CAUSES CAUSES
EFFECT EFFECT
PICTURE 1 PICTURE 2
PICTURE 1 EXPLAINS MORE THAN PICTURE 2
Z W
X Y X Y
Z = BACKGROUND W = INTERVENING
VARIABLE VARIABLE
IND
UC
TIO
N DEDUCTION
VER
IFIC
ATIO
N
FACTS FACTS
THEORIES PREDICTIONS
THEORETICAL WORLD
EMPIRICAL WORLD
IT CONTINUED WITH
THE SYSTEMS APPROACH
DOUBTS ABOUTPOSSIBILITIES
OF THEANALYTICALAPPROACH
INTER-DISCIPLINARY
INTERESTS
PROBLEM-ORIENTEDSCIENCES
THE SYSTEMS
APPROACH
RESULT A +2
RESULT C +3
RESULT B +16
THE WHOLE
SYNERGY!
SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:
SYSTEMOPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMSSYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTSYSTEMS MODELS AND REAL SYSTEMSMAGNIFYING LEVELSYSTEMS STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS PROCESSESSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION AND SYSTEMS THEORY
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
P
P1
P2
P3
PA
PB
PC
P
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS ALTERNATIVE PRODUCERS MULTIFINALITY EQUIFINALITY
TODAY THE PICTURE IS MORECOMPLICATED
MEANING A
MEANING B MEANING C
STRUCTUREOF
MEANING
THEWHOLE
=
THE ACTORS APPROACH
REALITY CONSISTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROVINCES OF MEANING, WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS OVERLAPPING EACH OTHER:
THE BOOK OF LAW
THEJUDGE
THE OWNEROF THE
PRINTER SHOP
THETHIEF
A SET OF A PROFITABLE ETHICAL BUSINESS A THREAT RULES
ACTOR 1FINITE
PROVINCE OFMEANING
ACTOR 1FINITE
PROVINCE OFMEANING
SOMEWHATMODIFIED
ACTOR 2FINITE
PROVINCE OFMEANING
ACTOR 2FINITE
PROVINCE OFMEANING
SOMEWHATMODIFIED
INTER-PRETATION
INTER-PRETATION
MEETS ANOTHERINTERPRETATION
INTER-PRETATION
INTER-PRETATION
MEETS ANOTHERINTERPRETATION
ETC
DIA
GN
OS
IS
ACTS AND CHANGES
AN UNDER-STANDING OF INDIVIDUALACTORS’ FINITEPROVINCESOF MEANING
AND THEIRCHANGES
IN ORDER TOUNDERSTAND
ISNECESSARY
SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:
INTENTIONALITYDIALOGUEDIALECTICSACTORSOBSERVERSDIAGNOSISLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
A SUMMARY SO FAR:
THEANALYTICALAPPROACH
THESYSTEMS
APPROACH
THEACTORS
APPROACH
PREREQUISITES •EXISTING ANALYTICAL THEORY•VERIFIED/FALSIFIEDHYPOTHESES
•EXISTING SYSTEMS THEORY•ANALOGIES (HOMOLOGIES)
•METATHEORIES•CONSTITUTIONAL FACTORS•GENERAL PRE-UNDERSTANDING•INTERACTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
EXPLAINING/UNDERSTANDING
CAUSALITY FINALITY DIALECTICS
RESULTS •PURE CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONS•LOGICAL MODELS•REPRESENTATIVE CASES
•PARTLY UNIQUE CASES•CLASSIFICATION MECHANISMS•TYPICAL CASES
•DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGES•IDEAL-TYPIFIED LANGUAGES•EMANICIPATORY INTERACTIVE ACTION
METHODICAL PROCEDURESTHE 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
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
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.)
(CONT.)
ANALYTICAL APPROACH• THE MORE EXACT RESULTS, THE BETTER• RELIABILITY AS WELL AS VALIDITY SHOULD ALWAYS BE CHECKED, IF
POSSIBLE; SEVERAL TECHNIQUES FOR DOING SO AVAILABLESYSTEMS 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
B. SOME SPECIFIC GROUPS OF TECHNIQUES
FOR ANALYTICAL APPROACH• SAMPLING• VALIDATION
FOR SYSTEMS APPROACH• HISTORICAL STUDIES• CASE STUDIES
FOR ACTORS APPROACH• DIALOGUES• LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENTS
METHODICSPLANNING AND CONDUCTING STUDIES AT LARGETHE ANALYTICAL APPROACH
PLANNING THE STUDY
DESIGNING METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA
COLLECTING DATA
CONTROLLING CAUSALITY
CODING AND ARRANGING DATA
REPORTING
FORMULATING THE PROBLEM
THE SYSTEMS APPROACH
FORMULATINGPOSSIBLEFINALITY
RELATIONS
PLANNINGTHE
CONTINUATION
DESIGNINGMETHODS FOR
COLLECTING DATA
COLLECTINGDATA
REPORTING
CONTROLLINGFINALITY
CODING ANDARRANGING
DATA
ARE YOUSATISFIED
AS A CREATOROF KNOW-
LEDGE?
YES
NO
FO
RM
ULA
TIN
G
TH
E P
RO
BLEM
OF
DETERMINING
THE TYPE
REAL
SYSTEM
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
THE ACTORS APPROACH
METHODICS DIFFER WIDELY. COMMONLY INCLUDED PROCEDURES ARE:
PROBLEMATIZATIONDIALOGUES WITH LEADING ACTORSTRACING MEANING IN HISTORYSEARCHING FOR THE HISTORY OF MEANINGAN INTERPLAY OF ENGAGEMENT AND DISSOCIATIONDIAGNOSTICAL STOPSFREQUENT FEEDBACKS
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
DIFFERENT KINDS OF CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE:
THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPLAIN:LOOK FOR FACTUAL DATA (OBJECTIVE AND/OR SUBJECTIVE ONES) AND USE A PICTURING LANGUAGEWANT TO FIND CAUSAL PATTERNSBUILD 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 LANGUAGEMAKE INTERPRETATIONS
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
EXPLAINING KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE
THE ANALYTICALAPPROACH
THE SYSTEMS APPROACH
THE ACTORS APPROACH
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!
THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF EXPLANATIONS:
EXPLANATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY ITSELF:
1. EXPLANATIONS BY CAUSE2. EXPLANATIONS BY PURPOSE
EXPLANATIONS OUTSIDE THE STUDY (IN THE SYSTEM?)
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
UNDERSTANDING:
IS ONLY VALID
WHEN STUDYING HUMAN BEINGS
FROM ONE HUMAN BEING TO ANOTHER
WHEN INTENTIONALITY IS ACCEPTED
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
TO EXPLAIN TO UNDERSTAND
STRUCTURES LANGUAGE
PROCESSES CULTURE
(LANGUAGE) (STRUCTURES)
(CULTURE) (PROCESSES)
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
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
JUDGING THE QUALITY OF KNOWLEDGE CREATED:
• REPRESENTATIVITY
• USEFULNESS
• MEANINGFULNESS
EXPLAINING
UNDERSTANDING