Scientific approach

Uma Sekaran
Hallmarks of scientific research
1. Purposiveness
• Manager start the research with definite aim or purpose.
• Research Commitment less turnover, less absenteeism, increased performance.

2. Rigor
• Good theoretical base and strong methodology
• Manager ask from 10-12 employees  commitment unscientific approach.
a. The conclusion would be incorrectly drawn 10-12 employees not representative of
whole.
b. Question should be biased or incorrect.
c. Lots of other things influence commitment researcher failed to include them Lack of
theoretical background.
Hallmarks of scientific research
3. Testability
• After random selection  study of the previous research  develop hypothesis  statistical test 
for purpose
• EXP: Hypothesis Participation is positive related to the Commitment
• Appropriate statistical test
• To see weather data support your the educated conjecture (inference).

4. Replicability
• Manager/Researcher Based on previous study Concludes Participation is positively related to
commitment.
• We will place faith and credence in these findings if similar findings emerge on data collected
from other organization employing same method.
• the result to test the hypothesis same when the same type of research repeated  In similar
circumstances.
• Gain confidence  in scientific nature
Hallmarks of scientific research
5. Precision and confidence
• We hardly ever have the luxury of being able to draw definite conclusion on the basis of
result.
• Unable to study the universe.
• Our findings are based on sample.
• Sample is not exact to the population.
• Measurement error and other problems  make bias or error in findings.
• We would like to design  Ensure  finding are close to reality.
Precision
• Closeness to reality on the basis of sample.
• No of production days lost during year = 35
• Your study = 30-40 favorable
• If your study = 20-50
• Confidence
• Probability that our estimation are correct
• We can confidently claim that 95% of time our result would be true.
• Significance level = p= .05 (Far from reality)
Hallmarks of scientific research
6.Objectivity
• Conclusion drawn based on facts of the findings derived from actual result.
• Not on subjective
• Damage can be sustain organization that implement non data base or misleading conclusion.

7.Generalizability
• Applicability of the research from one organization setting to other.
• If the researchers find that  participation and commitment link different settings
generalizability enhance.
• Not many research findings can be generalized.
Hallmarks of scientific research
8. Parsimony
• Simplicity in explaining the phenomena o a problem that occur, generating solution, Is always
preferred to complex research framework.
• Two or three variable = change 45% more valuable
• Ten variables = change 48% beyond manager control
• Parsimony can be introduce with good understanding of the problem and important factors that
influence.
Building Blocks of science in Research
• Deduction
 Process, we arrive at a reasoned conclusion by logical generalization of a known
fact.

• Induction
 Process where we observe certain phenomena and on the basis arrive at conclusion.
The seven-step process in the hypothetico-
deductive method
The hypothetico‐deductive method involves the seven steps listed and discussed next.
1. Identify a broad problem area.
2. Define the problem statement.
3. Develop hypotheses.
4. Determine measures.
5. Data collection.
6. Data analysis.
7. Interpretation of data.
Hypothetic-deductive method
1. Identify a broad problem area

A drop in sales, frequent production interruptions, incorrect accounting results, low‐yielding

Scientific research starts with a definite aim or purpose. To find solutions for identified problems, a
problem statement that includes the general objective and research questions of the research should be
developed.

Gathering initial information about the factors that are possibly related to the problem will help us to
narrow the broad problem area and to define the problem statement.

Preliminary information gathering involves the seeking of information in depth, of what is observed (for
instance, the observation that our company is losing customers). This could be done by a literature
review (literature on customer switching) or by talking to several people in the work setting, to clients
(why do they switch?), thereby gathering information on what is happening and why.
Hypothetic-deductive method
3. Develop hypotheses

In this step, variables are examined to ascertain their contribution or influence in explaining why the
problem occurs and how it can be solved. The network of associations identified among the variables is
then theoretically woven, together with justification as to why they might influence the problem. From a
theorized network of associations among the variables, certain hypotheses or educated conjectures can
be generated. For instance, at this point, we might hypothesize that specific factors such as overpricing,
competition, inconvenience, and unresponsive employees affect customer switching.

A scientific hypothesis must meet two requirements. The first criterion is that the hypothesis must be
testable. The second criterion, and one of the central tenets of the hypothetico‐deductive method, is that
a hypothesis must also be falsifiable. That is, it must be possible to disprove the hypothesis. According
to Karl Popper, this is important because a hypothesis cannot be confirmed; there is always a possibility
that future research will show that it is false.
Hypothetic-deductive method
4. Determine measures

Unless the variables in the theoretical framework are measured in some way, we will not be able to test
our hypotheses. To test the hypothesis that unresponsive employees affect customer switching, we need
to operationalize unresponsiveness and customer switching.
Hypothetic-deductive method
5. Data collection

After we have determined how to measure our variables, data with respect to each variable in the
hypothesis need to be obtained. These data then form the basis for data analysis.
Hypothetic-deductive method
6. Data analysis

In the data analysis step, the data gathered are statistically analyzed to see if the hypotheses that were
generated have been supported. For instance, to see if unresponsiveness of employees affects customer
switching, we might want to do a correlational analysis to determine the relationship between these
variables.
Hypothetic-deductive method
7. Interpretation of data

Now we must decide whether our hypotheses are supported or not by interpreting the meaning of the
results of the data analysis. For instance, if it was found from the data analysis that increased
responsiveness of employees was negatively related to customer switching (say, 0.3), then we can
deduce that if customer retention is to be increased, our employees have to be trained to be more
responsive. Another inference from this data analysis is that responsiveness of our employees accounts
for (or explains) 9% of the variance in customer switching (0.32). Based on these deductions, we are
able to make recommendations on how the “customer switching” problem may be solved (at least to
some extent); we have to train our employees to be more flexible and communicative.

Note that even if the hypothesis on the effect of unresponsiveness on customer switching is not
supported, our research effort has still been worthwhile. Hypotheses that are not supported allow us to
refine our theory by thinking about why it is that they were not supported. We can then test our refined
theory in future research.
Hypothetic-deductive method
Obstacles to conducting scientific research
In the management and behavioral areas, it is not always possible to conduct investigations that are
100% scientific, in the sense that, unlike in the physical sciences, the results obtained will not be exact
and error‐free.

This is primarily because of difficulties likely to be encountered in the measurement and collection of
data in the subjective areas of feelings, emotions, attitudes, and perceptions. These problems occur
whenever we attempt to measure abstract and subjective constructs.

Difficulties might also be encountered in obtaining a representative sample, restricting the

Thus, it is not always possible to meet all the hallmarks of science in full. Comparability, consistency,
and wide generalizability are often difficult to obtain in research. Still, to the extent that the research is
designed to ensure purposiveness, rigor, and the maximum possible testability, replicability,
generalizability, objectivity, parsimony, and precision and confidence, we would have endeavored to
engage in scientific investigation.
Alternative approaches to research
The disagreement about the nature of knowledge or how we come to know (the appropriate name for
these matters is epistemology) has a long history and it is not restricted to research in business.
Questions such as “What exists?”, “What is knowledge?”, and “How do we acquire knowledge?” have
fascinated philosophers and researchers in many fields for over 2000 years. At this point, we will briefly
discuss the most important perspectives for contemporary research in business. We will successively
deal with positivism, constructionism, critical realism, and pragmatism.
Alternative approaches to research
Positivism
In a positivist view of the world, science and scientific research is seen as the way to get at the truth –
indeed, positivists believe that there is an objective truth out there – to understand the world well enough
so that we are able to predict and control it. For a positivist, the world operates by laws of cause and
effect that we can discern if we use a scientific approach to research. Positivists are concerned with the
rigor and replicability of their research, the reliability of observations, and the generalizability of
findings. They use deductive reasoning to put forward theories that they can test by means of a fixed,
predetermined research design and objective measures. The key approach of positivist researchers is the
experiment, which allows them to test cause‐and‐effect relationships through manipulation and
observation. Some positivists believe that the goal of research is to only describe phenomena that one
can directly observe and objectively measure. For them, knowledge of anything beyond that – such as
emotions, feelings, and thoughts – is impossible.
Alternative approaches to research
Constructionism
A completely different approach to research and how research should be done is constructionism.
Constructionism criticizes the positivist belief that there is an objective truth. Constructionists hold the
opposite view, namely that the world (as we know it!) is fundamentally mental or mentally constructed.
For this reason, constructionists do not search for the objective truth. Instead, they aim to understand the
rules people use to make sense of the world by investigating what happens in people’s minds.
Constructionism thus emphasizes how people construct knowledge; it studies the accounts people give
of issues and topics and how people get to these accounts. Constructionists are particularly interested in
how people’s views of the world result from interactions with others and the context in which they take
place. The research methods of constructionist researchers are often qualitative in nature. Focus groups
and unstructured interviews allow them to collect rich data, oriented to the contextual uniqueness of the
world that is being studied. Indeed, constructionists are often more concerned with understanding a
specific case than with the generalization of their findings. This makes sense from the viewpoint of the
constructionist; there is no objective reality to generalize about.
Alternative approaches to research
Critical realism
Between these two opposed views on research and on how research should be done, there are many
intermediary viewpoints. One of these viewpoints is critical realism. Critical realism is a combination of
the belief in an external reality (an objective truth) with the rejection of the claim that this external
reality can be objectively measured; observations (especially observations on phenomena that we cannot
observe and measure directly, such as satisfaction, motivation, culture) will always be subject to
interpretation. The critical realist is thus critical of our ability to understand the world with certainty.
Where a positivist believes that the goal of research is to uncover the truth, the critical realist believes
that the goal of research is to progress toward this goal, even though it is impossible to reach it.
According to the critical realist viewpoint, measures of phenomena such as emotions, feelings, and
attitudes are often subjective in nature and the collection of data is, generally speaking, imperfect and
flawed. The critical realist also believes that researchers are inherently biased. They argue that we
therefore need to use triangulation across multiple flawed and erroneous methods, observations, and
researchers to get a better idea of what is happening around us.
Alternative approaches to research
Pragmatism
A final viewpoint on research that we will discuss here is pragmatism. Pragmatists do not take on a particular
position on what makes good research. They feel that research on both objective, observable phenomena and
subjective meanings can produce useful knowledge, depending on the research questions of the study. The
focus of pragmatism is on practical, applied research where different viewpoints on research and the subject
under study are helpful in solving a (business) problem. Pragmatism describes research as a process where
concepts and meanings (theory) are generalizations of our past actions and experiences, and of interactions we
have had with our environment. Pragmatists thus emphasize the socially constructed nature of research;
different researchers may have different ideas about, and explanations for, what is happening around us. For
the pragmatist, these different perspectives, ideas, and theories help us to gain an understanding of the world;
pragmatism thus endorses eclecticism and pluralism. Another important feature of pragmatism is that it views
the current truth as tentative and changing over time. In other words, research results should always be
viewed as provisional truths. Pragmatists stress the relationship between theory and practice. For a pragmatist,
theory is derived from practice (as we have just explained) and then applied back to practice to achieve
intelligent practice. Along these lines, pragmatists see theories and concepts as important tools for finding our
way in the world that surrounds us. For a pragmatist, the value of research lies in its practical relevance; the
purpose of theory is to inform practice.
Thank you