BUSINESS RESEARCH THROUGH ARGUMENT BUSINESS RESEARCH THROUGH ARGUMENT Mike Metcalfe Springer Science+Business Media, LLC Library оС Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Metcalfe, Mike. Business research through argument / Ьу Mike Metcalfe. р. ст. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4613-5967-8 ISBN 978-1-4615-2291-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-2291-1 1. Business--Research--Methodol0gy. 2. Reasoning. 1. Title. HD30.4.M477 1995 650'.072--dc20 95-31417 CIP Copyright © 1996 Springer Science+BusinessMedia New York Originally pubIished Ьу Кluwer Academic Publishers in 1996 Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1st edition 1996 АН rights reserved. No part of this publication тау Ье reproduced, stored in а retrieval system or transmitted in any form or Ьу any means, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Printed оп acid-free рарег. DEDICATION To Katie, Rachael and Joan, for the smiles they put into my life. CONTENTS Preface: ix The Argument ix Definitions ix Introduction and Motivation x Evidence for Argumentation xi Conclusion and Implications xii Acknowledgements xv Chp.l: Against Personal Objectivity 1 Objectivity 2 Some History 4 Self -deception 5 Appendix from Broad and Wane 9 Objectivity and Group Argument 14 Conclusion 16 Chp.2: People Ain't Molecules 17 The Impact of the Observer 18 Argument vs Observation 22 Against the Dominance of Statistics 24 Interpretive or Qualitative Methods 29 Eclectic Methods 32 Conclusion 33 Appendix 35 Chp.3: Argument 39 Limits of Proof 42 Argument for Objectivity 47 Definition of Theory 50 Commitment 54 Bias Ethics 55 59 Scientific Thinking 59 Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca Source of Argument? 62 Conclusion 65 67 Appendix viii Chp.4: Argument Structure 71 Specific vs General 73 Motivation for the Study 75 Parts of the Structure 76 Unwanted Attributes? 82 Conclusion 85 Appendix 87 Chp.5: Commentaries 91 A: The Business Suit Theory 91 B: The Lego Assignment 104 C: The Austrian Experience 112 Chp.6: Evidence from Interviews 119 Who to Interview 120 Intentions vs Opinions 120 Concerned Persons 121 Best Experts 121 Unlearning and Anchoring 123 Optimism 125 Interaction Effects 126 The Interview 128 Problems with Human Judgment 130 Chp.7: Evidence from Questionnaires 131 Organization 131 Data Types 135 Annual Profit Questionaire 138 Questionnaire 140 Tests 141 Internal and External Validity 142 References 145 152 Index PREFACE: The brief The Argument This book is for those who have tried to start academic research into some business activity and found themselves confused. Why is a bibliography with-abstracts not a literature review? What is the role of reasoning in empirical research? How can a heated argument break out over the results of an objective and unbiased experiment? What is the difference between multiple hypotheses, a null hypothesis, a theory, a theoretical framework and a model? If theory comes from the Greek to speculate, then does not doing theory-based research mean merely collecting confirming evidence? This confusion often occurs because the so-called scientific method has been explained as a research strategy rather than in its correct role as one evidence collection technique. Added to this, the term theory has been much abused and/or been give unwarranted status. A much clearer and more strategic way of thinking about research is to think of it as being a process of arguing to convince your peers. This perspective has the advantage of avoiding the ill defined jargon and makes the task of planning your research much easier. The perspective of research being a product of argument is not new, it has found to be historically correct, is more explicit about the biases of the researcher, and, it encourages the use of multiple method in research, that is, the use of both the quantitative methods and the qualitative methods. However, it is not common to find it being mentioned in research methods books. By clarifying the language and encouraging the use of multiple research methods, the book also expects to improve the quality and the communication of research. Accepting that research is a process of arguing with your peers encourages high quality, acceptable, evidence collection methods coupled with an acceptable method for collating and communicating this evidence to clear purpose. Definitions [A] It is assumed that the reader knows what is meant by a reasoned, balanced, fair argument and understands that such an argument needs to x be supported by credible (maybe including scientific) evidence. The process of preparing and presenting an argument is called argumentation. More formally it is defined as: Argumentation is a social, intellectual, verbal [spoken or written] activity serving to justify or refute an opinion [idea, conception, policy], consisting of a constellation of statements and directed towards obtaining the approbation of an audience [Eemeren et al., 1989] It is not being suggested that rhetoric replace careful observation and reasoned conclusions, rather, that these important attributes of quality research are encouraged by healthy argument. [BI Business research is considered different from research in the physical sciences because it involves subjects that use language, understand they are being studied, can be influenced by the results and are extremely situational in their behavior. Research is defined so as to include what some would call both normal science and major advances (paradigm shifts). The word research is used to mean a careful, through, acceptable collection of convincing evidence which should use observation and measurement whenever possible. Introduction and Motivation As a postgraduate co-ordinator I have the task of helping some very able students get started on formal academic research. Many come to talk to me after having read books like, "What is this called Science" or the many "Business Research Methods" clones. They have picked up words like theory, hypothesis data analysis and literature review. However, when they tried to apply these ill defined terms to their own research they become confused. They ask questions like those listed at the start of this preface. Initially, I tried to simply tried to provide my own, hopefully better, explanations of the language their research methods books had introduced. However, reading on, especially the work of Kuhn, Feyerabend and Morgan, coupled with the informal logic philosophy literature, it soon became obvious that an wider and better perspective on how to plan research does exist. It seems to pre-date the scientific revolution, it is the basis of our legal system, it is well established in the humanities subjects, (English, History, anthropology) and may be a much better way of understanding the role of the so-called scientific method. Research should be perceived as being an argument. This perspective covers research from the level of discussions between learned academics xi in different universities, to the preparation of a postgraduate thesis. Indeed, the word thesis can be translated from the Greek to mean position or argument. By explaining to those starting out in research that their thesis will be an argument, in much the same way a lawyer argues for her defendant in court, makes the task much clearer to the student. Students understand that research in earnest cannot start until they can answer questions like, "What is your argument?" "What evidence do you intend to present, what is there in the literature to support your argument, will you need to calculate some correlations to support your other evidence"? The only real difference between a thesis undertaken using this perspective and any other is that the researcher is not required to hide his or her expectations of any results. The argument method assumes that quality research depends on debate between experts. This is how objectivity is achieved. Objectivity cannot be achieved by one individual. Research is assumed to require the presence of an advocate (the researcher) and a universal knowledgeable audience (examiners or journal readers). The researcher is required to use quality evidence, including reasoning and experiments, to try and convince a knowledgeable audience. This will need to include anticipating the counter arguments in much the same way some editors insist that all papers contain alternative hypotheses. You will not convince someone unless you can alleviate their concerns about alternative explanations. Making research methodology more understandable must be an important objective. The journals are full of apparently mis-directed, unconvincing or trivial research. Often research fails to be communicated to students or to practicing managers because its overall purpose was not clear. Students and practicing managers understand the concept of presenting an argument. In my experience they pick up the language very quickly. They understand that research is about evidence collection, and convincing a knowledgeable reader that they have done a thorough job. It is something they have done many times it the past. Formal, academic, research simply requires more rigor and originality in the evidence collection process. The Evidence for Argument The evidence presented in this book in support of the argument approach is to first emphasise the now well reported limitations in the language of the so-called scientific method. For example, poor definition of the word 'objectivity' has caused some to forget that experimenters cannot be xii trusted to be completely objective (unbiased). Objectivity (like justice) is better trusted if it is practiced in the open, with an advocate and an audience. Next, the book presents evidence to underline that any research into business activity is really a study of people. It is then pointed out that the scientific method was not designed for the study of animals, let alone species that have language. The research methods that have been specifically designed to deal with language are then introduced. Chapter 3 then directly introduces the argument approach, as a cure for the apparent limitations of so-called scientific method. This is done by contrasting it with the terms like thesis, hypothesis and theory. Because of the enormous range of possible approaches it is difficult to be explicit about exactly how to compile a quality argument, however, the chapter directly explains the argument approach. The next chapter discusses alternative structures, or styles, that can be used in an argument. This, partly, allows the attributes of a good argument to be discussed. Chapter 5 provides a summary of what has been said in the previous chapters in the form of a commentary on three short articles. The first is written by Schreuder mocking brute empiricism. It is hoped that this will not only provide some general background on empirical testing, but will also highlight the advantages of the argument approach. The next article is a very compact experimental piece, which is reviewed using the argument approach. Last, a story about one researcher's search for an argument (research topic) is presented. The second part of the book is a much more traditional summary of the attributes of various research methods such as interviews and questionnaires. Conclusion and Implications So, the purpose of this book is to convince you that undertaking research using the language associated with the so-called scientific method might not be a wise, or easy, thing to do. Rather the more universal, more easily understood, more honest method of argument should be your guide. The author's experience of guiding his students towards this argument method is that they have been much more focused, and their resulting thesis much more acceptable to a wider range of audience. The argument approach is expected to be of benefit in terms of the performance of individual students but it has wider benefits. For example, many of the major academic business journals are of little interest to other academics, teachers and managers. Above all the argument approach is a communications approach. To do research without communication is an