CHAPTER 2

Scientific investigation

Topics discussed
¢ The hallmarks of science
- Purposiveness
- Rigor
- Testability
- Replicability
- Precision and confidence
- Objectivity
- Generalizability
- Parsimony
Limitations to scientific research in management
The building blocks of science and the hypothetico-deductive
method of research
© The seven steps of the hypothetico-deductive method
- Identify the broad problem area
- Define the problem statement
- Develop hypotheses
- Determine measures
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Interpretation of data
¢ Other types of research
- Case studies
- Action research
 APTER OBJECTIVES
After completing Chapter 2 you should be able to:

1. Explain what is meant by scientific investigation, giving examples of both scientific

and nonscientific investigations.
2. Explain the eight hallmarks of science.
3. Briefly explain why research in the organizational behavior and management areas
cannot be completely scientific.
4. Describe the building blocks of science.
5. Discuss the seven steps of the hypothetico-deductive method, using an example of
your own.
6. Describe the processes of induction and deduction.
7. Appreciate the advantages of knowledge about scientific investigation.

Managers frequently face issues that call for critical decision making. Managerial decisions
based on the results of scientific research tend to be effective. In Chapter 1, we defined research
as an organized, systematic, data-based, critical, objective, scientific inquiry into a specific
problem that needs a solution. Decisions based on the results of a well-done scientific study
tend to yield the desired results. It is necessary to understand what the term scientific means.
Scientific research focuses on solving problems and pursues a step-by-step logical, organized,
and rigorous method to identify the problems, gather data, analyze them, and draw valid
conclusions from them. Thus, scientific research is not based on hunches, experience, and
intuition (though these may play a part in final decision making), but is purposive and
rigorous. Because of the rigorous way in which it is done, scientific research enables all those
who are interested in researching and knowing about the same or similar issues to come up
with comparable findings when the data are analyzed. Scientific research also helps research-
ers to state their findings with accuracy and confidence. This helps various other organizations
to apply those solutions when they encounter similar problems. Furthermore, scientific
investigation tends to be more objective than subjective, and helps managers to highlight
the most critical factors at the workplace that need specific attention so as to avoid, minimize,
or solve problems. Scientific investigation and managerial decision making are integral
aspects of effective problem solving.
The term scientific research applies to both basic and applied research. Applied research
may or may not be generalizable to other organizations, depending on the extent to which
differences exist in such factors as size, nature of work, characteristics of the employees, and
structure of the organization. Nevertheless, applied research also has to be an organized and
systematic process where problems are carefully identified, data scientifically gathered and
analyzed, and conclusions drawn in an objective manner for effective problem solving.
Do organizations always follow the rigorous step-by-step process? No. Sometimes the
problem may be so simple that it does not call for elaborate research, and past experience
might offer the necessary solution. At other times, exigencies of time (where quick decisions
 are called for), unwillingness to expend the resources needed for doing good research, lack of
knowledge, and other factors might prompt businesses to try to solve problems based on
hunches. However, the probability of making wrong decisions in such cases is high. Even such
business “gurus” as Lee Tacocca confess to making big mistakes due to errors of judgment.
Business Week, Fortune, and the Wall Street Journal, among other business periodicals and
newspapers, feature articles from time to time about organizations that face difficulties
because of wrong decisions made on the basis of hunches and/or insufficient information.
Many implemented plans fail because not enough research has preceded their formulation.

The hallmarks of scientific research

The hallmarks or main distinguishing characteristics of scientific research may be listed as
follows:

. Purposiveness
G R w N e

Rigor
. Testability
PN

. Replicability
. Precision and confidence
. Objectivity
. Generalizability
, Parsimony

Each of these characteristics can be explained in the context of a concrete example. Let us
consider the case of a manager who is interested in investigating how employees’ commitment
to the organization can be increased. We shall examine how the eight hallmarks of science
apply to this investigation so that it may be considered “scientific.”

Purposiveness
The manager has started the research with a definite aim or purpose. The focus is on
increasing the commitment of employees to the organization, as this will be beneficial in
many ways. An increase in employee commitment will translate into less turnover, less
absenteeism, and probably increased performance levels, all of which will definitely benefit
the organization. The research thus has a purposive focus.

Rigor

A good theoretical base and a sound methodological design add rigor to a purposive study.
Rigor connotes carefulness, scrupulousness, and the degree of exactitude in research
investigations. In the case of our example, let us say the manager of an organization asks 10 to
12 of its employees to indicate what would increase their level of commitment to it. If, solely on
the basis of their responses, the manager reaches several conclusions on how employee
commitment can be increased, the whole approach to the investigation is unscientific. It lacks
rigor for the following reasons:

1. The conclusions are incorrectly drawn because they are based on the responses of justa few
employees whose opinions may not be representative of those of the entire workforce.
2. The manner of framing and addressing the questions could have introduced bias or
incorrectness in the responses.
3. There might be many other important influences on organizational commitment that this
small sample of respondents did not or could not verbalize during the interviews, and the
researcher has therefore failed to include them.

Therefore, conclusions drawn from an investigation that lacks a good theoretical founda-
tion, as evidenced by reason 3, and methodological sophistication, as evident from 1 and 2
above, are unscientific. Rigorous research involves a good theoretical base and a carefully
thought-out methodology. These factors enable the researcher to collect the right kind of
information from an appropriate sample with the minimum degree of bias, and facilitate
suitable analysis of the data gathered. The following chapters of this book address these
theoretical and methodological issues. Rigor in research design also makes possible the
achievement of the other six hallmarks of science that we shall now discuss.

Testability
If, after talking to a random selection of employees of the organization and study of the
previous research done in the area of organizational commitment, the manager or researcher
develops certain hypotheses on how employee commitment can be enhanced, then these can
be tested by applying certain statistical tests to the data collected for the purpose. For instance,
the researcher might hypothesize that those employees who perceive greater opportunities for
participation in decision making will have a higher level of commitment. This is a hypothesis
that can be tested when the data are collected. A correlation analysis will indicate whether the
hypothesis is substantiated or not. The use of several other tests, such as the chi-square test
and the f-test, is discussed in Chapters 11 and 12.
Scientific research thus lends itself to testing logically developed hypotheses to see
whether or not the data support the educated conjectures or hypotheses that are developed
after a careful study of the problem situation. Testability thus becomes another hallmark of
scientific research.

Replicahility
Let us suppose that the manager /researcher, based on the results of the study, concludes that
participation in decision making is one of the most important factors that influences the
commitment of employees to the organization. We will place more faith and credence in these
findings and conclusion if similar findings emerge on the basis of data collected by other
organizations employing the same methods. To put it differently, the results of the tests of
hypotheses should be supported again and yet again when the same type of research is
repeated in other similar circumstances. To the extent that this does happen (i.e., the results are
replicated or repeated), we will gain confidence in the scientific nature of our research. In
other words, our hypotheses have not been supported merely by chance, but are reflective of
the true state of affairs in the population. Replicability is thus another hallmark of scientific
research.

Precision and confidence

In management research, we seldom have the luxury of being able to draw “definitive”
conclusions on the basis of the results of data analysis. This is because we are unable to study
the universe of items, events, or population we are interested in, and have to base our findings
on a sample that we draw from the universe. In all probability, the sample in question may not
reflect the exact characteristics of the phenomenon we are trying to study (these difficulties are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10). Measurement errors and other problems are also
bound to introduce an element of bias or error in our findings. However, we would like to
design the research in a manner that ensures that our findings are as close to reality (i.e,, the
true state of affairs in the universe) as possible, so that we can place reliance or confidence in
the results.
Precision refers to the closeness of the findings to “reality” based on a sample. In other
words, precision reflects the degree of accuracy or exactitude of the results on the basis of the
sample, to what really exists in the universe. For example, if I estimated the number of
production days lost during the year due to absenteeism at between 30 and 40, as against the
actual figure of 35, the precision of my estimation compares more favorably than if I had
indicated that the loss of production days was somewhere between 20 and 50. You may recall
the term confidence interval in statistics, which is what is referred to here as precision.
Confidence refers to the probability that our estimations are correct. That is, it is not merely
enough to be precise, but it is also important that we can confidently claim that 95% of the time
our results will be true and there is only a 5% chance of our being wrong. This is also known as
the confidence level.
The narrower the limits within which we can estimate the range of our predictions (i.e.,
the more precise our findings) and the greater the confidence we have in our research
results, the more useful and scientific the findings become. In social science research, a 95%
confidence level - which implies that there is only a 5% probability that the findings may not
be correct - is accepted as conventional, and is usually referred to as a significance level of
0.05 (p = 0.05). Thus, precision and confidence are important aspects of research, which are
attained through appropriate scientific sampling design. The greater the precision and
confidence we aim at in our research, the more scientific is the investigation and the more
useful are the results. Both precision and confidence are discussed in detail in Chapter 10 on
Sampling.
Objectivity
The conclusions drawn through the interpretation of the results of data analysis should be
objective; that is, they should be based on the facts of the findings derived from actual data,
and not on our own subjective or emotional values. For instance, if we had a hypothesis that
stated that greater participation in decision making would increase organizational commit-
ment, and this was not supported by the results, it would make no sense if the researcher
continued to argue that increased opportunities for employee participation would still help!
Such an argument would be based, not on the factual, data-based research findings, but on the
subjective opinion of the researcher. If this was the researcher’s conviction all along, then there
was no need to do the research in the first place!
Much damage can be sustained by organizations that implement non-data-based or
misleading conclusions drawn from research. For example, if the hypothesis relating to
organizational commitment in our previous example was not supported, considerable time
and effort would be wasted in finding ways to create opportunities for employee participation
in decision making. We would only find out later that employees still kept quitting, remained
absent, and did not develop any sense of commitment to the organization. Likewise, if
research shows that increased pay is not going to increase the job satisfaction of employees,
then implementing a revised, increased pay system will only drag down the company
financially without attaining the desired objective. Such a futile exercise, then, is based on
nonscientific interpretation and implementation of the research results.
The more objective the interpretation of the data, the more scientific the research
investigation becomes. Though managers or researchers might start with some initial subjec-
tive values and beliefs, their interpretation of the data should be stripped of personal values
and bias. If managers attempt to do their own research, they should be particularly sensitive to
this aspect. Objectivity is thus another hallmark of scientific investigation.

Generalizability
Generalizability refers to the scope of applicability of the research findings in one organiza-
tional setting to other settings. Obviously, the wider the range of applicability of the solutions
generated by research, the more useful the research is to the users. For instance, if a
researcher’s findings that participation in decision making enhances organizational commit-
ment are found to be true in a variety of manufacturing, industrial, and service organizations,
and not merely in the particular organization studied by the researcher, then the general-
izability of the findings to other organizational settings is enhanced. The more generalizable
the research, the greater its usefulness and value. However, not many research findings can be
generalized to all other settings, situations, or organizations.
For wider generalizability, the research sampling design has to be logically developed and
a number of other details in the data-collection methods need to be meticulously followed.
However, a more elaborate sampling design, which would doubtless increase the general-
izability of the results, would also increase the costs of research. Most applied research is
generally confined to research within the particular organization where the problem arises,
and the results, at best, are generalizable only to other identical situations and settings.
Though such limited applicability does not necessarily decrease its scientific value (subject to
proper research), its generalizability is restricted.

Parsimony
Simplicity in explaining the phenomena or problems that occur, and in generating solutions
for the problems, is always preferred to complex research frameworks that consider an
unmanageable number of factors. For instance, if two or three specific variables in the work
situation are identified, which when changed would raise the organizational commitment of
the employees by 45%, that would be more useful and valuable to the manager than if it were
recommended that he should change ten different variables to increase organizational
commitment by 48%. Such an unmanageable number of variables might well be totally
beyond the manager’s control to change. Therefore, the achievement of a meaningful and
parsimonious, rather than an elaborate and cumbersome, model for problem solution
becomes a critical issue in research.
Economy in research models is achieved when we can build into our research framework a
lesser number of variables that explain the variance far more efficiently than a complex set of
variables that only marginally add to the variance explained. Parsimony can be introduced
with a good understanding of the problem and the important factors that influence it. Such a
good conceptual theoretical model can be realized through unstructured and structured
interviews with the concerned people, and a thorough literature review of the previous
research work in the particular problem area.

In sum, scientific research encompasses the eight criteria just discussed. These are discussed
in more detail later in this book. At this point, a question that might be asked is why a
scientific approach is necessary for investigations when systematic research by simply
collecting and analyzing data would produce results that could be applied to solve the
problem. The reason for following a scientific method is that the results will be less prone to
error and more confidence can be placed in the findings because of the greater rigor in
application of the design details. This also increases the replicability and generalizability of
the findings.

Some obstacles to conducting scientific research

in the management area
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 quantify human behavior. Difficulties
might also be encountered in obtaining a representative sample, restricting the general-
izability of the findings. 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, parsi-
mony, and precision and confidence, we would have endeavored to engage in scientific
investigation. Several other possible limitations in research studies are discussed in
subsequent chapters.

The hypothetico-deductive method

Scientific research pursues a step-by-step, logical, organized, and rigorous method
(a scientific method) to find a solution to a problem. The hypothetico-deductive method,
popularized by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, is a typical version of the
scientific method. The hypothetico-deductive method provides a useful, systematic
approach to solving basic and managerial problems. This systematic approach is dis-
cussed next.

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

Identify a broad problem area

A drop in sales, frequent production interruptions, incorrect accounting results, low-yielding
investments, disinterestedness of employees in their work, customer switching, and the like,
could attract the attention of the manager and catalyze the research project.
Define the problem statement
Scientific research starts with a definite aim or purpose. To find solutions for identified
problems, a problem statement that states the general objective 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, discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3,
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?), or to other relevant sources, thereby gathering
information on what is happening and why. Through any of these methods, we get an idea
or a “feel’” for what is transpiring in the situation. This allows us to develop a specific
problem statement.

Develop hypotheses
In this step variables are examined as to 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 un-
responsive employees affect customer switching.
A scientific hypothesis must meet two requirements. The first criterion is that the
hypothesis must be festable. A famous example of a hypothesis that is not testable is the
hypothesis that God created the earth. 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. Hence, failing to falsify (!) a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it
remains provisional until it is disproved. Hence, the requirement of falsifiability emphasizes
the tentative nature of research findings: we can only “prove” our hypotheses until they are
disproved.
The development of hypotheses and the process of theory formulation are discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 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.
Measurement of variables is discussed in Chapters 6 and 7.
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. Data
collection is extensively discussed in Chapters 5, 8, 9, and 10.

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.
Hypotheses are tested through appropriate statistical analysis, discussed in Chapter 12.
Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data can be done to determine if certain
conjectures are substantiated. Qualitative data refer to information gathered in a narrative
form through interviews and observations. For example, to test the theory that budgetary
constraints adversely impact on managers’ responses to their work, several interviews might
be conducted with managers after budget restrictions are imposed. The responses from the
managers, who verbalize their reactions in different ways, might then be organized to see the
different categories under which they fall and the extent to which the same kinds of responses
are articulated by the managers.

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 (0.3%). 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.

In summary, there are seven steps involved in identifying and resolving a problematic issue.
To make sure that the seven steps of the hypothetico-deductive method are properly
understood, let us briefly review an example in an organizational setting and the course
of action taken in the seven steps.
Example of the application of the hypothetico-deductive
method in organizations

The CIO Dilemma

Identifying the broad problem area

The Chief Information Officer (CIO) of a firm observes that the newly installed
Management Information System (MIS) is not being used by middle managers as
much as was originally expected. The managers often approach the CIO or some other
““computer expert” for help or, worse still, make decisions without facts. ““There is surely
a problem here,” the CIO exclaims. The CIO develops the following broad problem
statement: “What should be done to increase the use of the newly installed MIS by our
middle managers?”’

Defining the problem statement

Talking to some of the middle-level managers, the CIO finds that many of them have
very little idea as to what MIS is all about, what kinds of information it can provide, and
how to access it and utilize the information. The CIO uses the Internet to explore further
information on the lack of use of MIS in organizations. The search indicates that many
middle-level managers — especially the old-timers — are not familiar with operating
personal computers and experience “computer anxiety.” Lack of knowledge about what
MIS offers is also found to be another main reason why some managers do not use it.
This information helps the CIO to narrow the broad problem area and to define the
problem statement: ““To what extent do knowledge-related factors affect the use of MIS
by middle managers?”’

Hypothesizing

The CIO develops a theory incorporating all the relevant factors contributing to the lack
of access to the MIS by managers in the organization. From such a theory, the CIO
generates various hypotheses for testing, one among them being: Knowledge of the
usefulness of MIS would help managers to put it to greater use.

Development of measures and data collection

The CIO then develops a short questionnaire measuring the various factors theorized to
influence the use of the MIS by managers, such as the extent of knowledge of what MIS
is, what kinds of information MIS provides, how to gain access to the information, and
the level of comfort felt by managers in using computers in general, and finally, how
often managers have used the MIS in the preceding three months.
 Data analysis
The CIO then analyzes the data obtained through the questionnaire to see what factors
prevent the managers from using the system.

Interpretation
Based on the results, the manager deduces or concludes that managers do not use MIS
owing to certain factors. These deductions help the CIO to take necessary action to
rectify the situation, which might include, among other things, organizing seminars for
training managers on the use of computers, and MIS and its usefulness.

Review of the hypothetico-deductive method

The hypothetico-deductive method involves the seven steps of identifying a broad problem
area, defining the problem statement, hypothesizing, determining measures, data collection,
data analysis, and the interpretation of the results. Deductive reasoning is a key element in the
hypothetico-deductive method. In deductive reasoning, we start with a general theory and
then apply this theory to a specific case.
Hypothesis testing is deductive in nature because we test if a general theory (for instance
the theory that “customer satisfaction is based on the service quality dimensions of respon-
siveness, reliability, assurance, tangibles, and empathy”’) is capable of explaining a particular
problem; the problem that catalyzed our research project (for instance, complaints about the
service quality our company provides). Hence, service quality theory is used to make
predictions about relationships between certain variables in our specific situation; for
instance, that there is a positive relationship between perceived employee responsiveness
and satisfaction of our customers. In a similar vein, marketing researchers often deduce the
consequences of changes in the marketing mix based on existing (marketing) models.
Inductive reasoning works in the opposite direction: it is a process where we observe
specific phenomena and on this basis arrive at general conclusions. Along these lines, the
observation of a first, second, and third white swan may lead to the proposition that “all
swans are white”. In this example, the repeated observation of a white swan has led to the
conclusion that all swans are white. According to Karl Popper it is not possible to “’prove” a
hypothesis by means of induction, because no amount of evidence assures us that contrary
evidence will not be found. Observing 3, 10, 100, or even 10 000 white swans, does not justify
the conclusion that ““all swans are white’” because there is always a possibility that the next
swan we will observe will be black. Instead, Popper proposed that science is accomplished
by deduction.
However, despite Popper’s criticism on induction, both inductive and deductive processes
are often used in research. Indeed, many researchers have argued that both theory generation
(induction) and theory testing (deduction) are essential parts of the research process. The
following example illustrates this point.
 Sometimes, hypotheses that were not originally formulated do get generated through the
process of induction. That is, after the data are obtained, some creative insights occur and,
based on these, new hypotheses are generated to be tested later. The Hawthorne experiments
are a good example of this. In the relay assembly line, many experiments were conducted that
increased lighting and the like, based on the original hypothesis that these would account for
increases in productivity. But later, when these hypotheses were not substantiated, a new
hypothesis was generated based on observed data. The mere fact that people were chosen for
the study gave them a feeling of importance that increased their productivity whether or not
lighting, heating, or other effects were improved, thus the coining of the term the Hawthorne
effect! This example shows that both deductive and inductive processes are applied in
scientific investigations. Although both deductive and inductive processes can be used in
quantitative and qualitative research, deductive processes are more often used in causal and
quantitative studies, whereas inductive research processes are regularly used in exploratory
and qualitative studies.
In sum, theories based on deduction and induction help us to understand, explain, and/or
predict business phenomena. When research is designed to test some specific hypothesized
outcomes, for instance to see if controlling aversive noise in the environment increases the
performance of individuals in solving mental puzzles, the following steps ensue. The
investigator begins with the theory that noise adversely affects mental problem solving.
The hypothesis is then generated that if the noise is controlled, mental puzzles can be solved
more quickly and correctly. Based on this, a research project is designed to test the hypothesis.
The results of the study help the researcher to deduce or conclude that controlling the aversive
noise does indeed help the participants to improve their performance on mental puzzles. This
method of starting with a theoretical framework, formulating hypotheses, and logically
deducing from the results of the study is known as (you probably recognized it already)
the hypothetico-deductive method. Here is another example of the hypothetico-deductive
research process.

A sales manager might observe that customers are perhaps not as pleased as they used to
be. The manager may not be certain that this is really the case but may experience anxiety
and some uneasiness that customer satisfaction is on the decline. This process of
observation or sensing of the phenomena around us is what gets most research —
whether applied or basic — started. The next step for the manager is to determine
whether there is a real problem and, if so, how serious it is. This problem identification
calls for some preliminary data gathering. The manager might talk casually to a few
customers to find out how they feel about the products and customer service. During the
course of these conversations the manager might find that the customers like the
products but are upset because many of the items they need are frequently out of
stock, and they perceive the salespersons as not being helpful. From discussions with
some of the salespersons, the manager might discover that the factory does not supply
the goods on time and promises new delivery dates that it fails, on occasion, to keep.
 Salespersons might also indicate that they try to please and retain the customers by
communicating the delivery dates given to them by the factory.
Integration of the information obtained through the informal and formal interview-
ing process helps the manager to determine that a problem does exist and to define the
problem statement as follows: “How do delays affect customer satisfaction?”” It also helps
the manager to formulate a theoretical framework of all the factors contributing to the
problem. In this case, there is a network of connections among the following factors:
delays by the factory in delivering goods, the notification of later delivery dates that are
not kept, the promises of the salespersons to the customers (in hopes of retaining them)
that cannot be fulfilled, all of which contribute to customer dissatisfaction. From the
theoretical framework, which is a meaningful integration of all the information gath-
ered, several hypotheses can be generated and tested to determine if the data support
them. Concepts are then operationally defined so that they can be measured. A research
design is set up to decide on, among other issues, how to collect further data, analyze and
interpret them, and finally, to provide an answer to the problem. The process of drawing
from logical analysis an inference that purports to be conclusive is called deduction.
Thus, the building blocks of science provide the genesis for the hypothetico-deductive
method of scientific research.

Other types of research

Case studies and action research are sometimes used to study certain types of issues. These
will be briefly discussed now.

Case studies
Case studies involve in-depth, contextual analyses of similar situations in other organizations,
where the nature and definition of the problem happen to be the same as experienced in the
current situation. As in the hypothetico-deductive studies, hypotheses can be developed in
case studies as well. However, if a particular hypothesis has not been substantiated in even a
single other case study, no support can be established for the alternate hypothesis developed.
Case study, as a problem-solving technique, is not often undertaken in organizations
because such studies dealing with problems similar to the one experienced by a particular
organization of a particular size and in a particular type of setting are difficult to come by.
Moreover, authentic case studies are difficult to find because many companies prefer to guard
them as proprietary data. However, by carefully scrutinizing documented case studies, the
manager is in a position to obtain several clues as to what factors might be operating in the
current situation and how the problem might be solved. Picking the right cases for study, and
understanding and correctly translating the dynamics to one’s own situation, are critical for
successful problem solving. It should be noted that case studies usually provide qualitative
rather than quantitative data for analysis and interpretation. However, the application of
case study analysis to certain organizational issues is relatively easy. For example, a study of
what contributes to the successful installation of a good management information system in
organizations similar to the one that is planning to install it, and the practical application of
that knowledge would be very functional.

Action research
Action research is sometimes undertaken by consultants who want to initiate change
processes in organizations. In other words, action research methodology is most appropriate
while effecting planned changes. Here, the researcher begins with a problem that is already
identified, and gathers relevant data to provide a tentative problem solution. This solution is
then implemented, with the knowledge that there may be unintended consequences following
such implementation. The effects are then evaluated, defined, and diagnosed, and the research
continues on an ongoing basis until the problem is fully resolved.
Thus, action research is a constantly evolving project with interplay among problem,
solution, effects or consequences, and new solution. A sensible and realistic problem defini-
tion and creative ways of collecting data are critical to action research. An example of a
situation where action research would be useful is given below.

The vice president of CDS Co. wants to introduce a new system of bookkeeping that is
likely to meet with some resistance from the Accounting Department. Based on the past
experience in the organization, the VP would like to seek a solution to the problem of
employee resistance.

There are several other methods of obtaining data for research purposes, such as through
focus groups, panels, observational studies, projective techniques, and interactive media, as
we shall see in Chapter 8.

In this chapter we obtained a general understanding of what constitutes scientific

research and examined the hallmarks of scientific investigations. We also discussed,
with examples, the steps involved in the hypothetico-deductive method of studying a
problem in order to solve it. When managers realize the value of scientific investigation,
they are able to understand and readily accept the need for “good” research. This offers