Anatomía de especies del género Desmoncus

An important consideration in creating the foundations of a research is whether the study is using an inductive or a deductive approach. In order to maintain the coherence of this study this section addresses the fundamental differences between these two approaches of logic and how they relate to the reasoning in this study. Farquhar (2012) makes an important point regarding the use of an inductive or a deductive approach to doing research. She argues that, if a researcher knows the shape (inductive, deductive or elements of both) that their study should take, it significantly reduces running the danger of making mistakes regarding its structure and overall integrity. Consistent with this Saunders et al. (2012) emphasises that, the degree to which a researcher is clear about the theory they are using, from the onset of their study, it becomes less difficult for them to address questions concerning its design. The scholars claim that this is often portrayed as two approaches based upon a researcher’s reasoning. As such, this study evaluates inductive and deductive approaches as they have influenced the reasoning underpinning how theory was developed. Additionally, the study explores ethnography and grounded theory because the research methods have a direct relationship with research logic assumed for this study.

3.2.1 Inductive and deductive approaches

The study borrows aspects of a deductive approach with an inductive approach being very much prominent. This is consistent with Perry (1998, p.788) who argues that “it is unlikely that any researcher could genuinely separate the two processes of induction and deduction”. According to Collis & Hussey (2003, p.15) inductive research is a study in which theory developed from the observation of empirically generated reality; i.e. “general inferences are induced from particular instances”. From that perspective, the study exhibits processes of induction; it starts with a problem which is identified as an investigation of how small born-global bio-tech firms develop their innovative capabilities.

96

Theory then emerges through that process of enquiry. This way of doing research is consistent with Eisenhardt & Graebner (2007) who point out that the question is framed in terms of the importance of the phenomenon being studied and the lack of plausibility of the existing theory. Saunders et al. (2007) agree that using an inductive approach, theory would follow rather than the other way around as with deductive approach.

Maylor & Blackmon (2005) suggest that in some cases the goal is to generate theory from the data which is achieved by looking for instances where a pattern is beginning to emerge and that advocates for inductive research. Processes of deduction in this study can be identified when the researcher adopts theories contained in Freeman’s et al. (2010) model of rapid knowledge development for smaller born-global bio-tech firms to assess the ones that hold in terms of explaining the specific situation of small born-global bio-tech firms in the East Midlands. This is supported by Richards (1993, p.40) who suggests that “both (prior theory and theory emerging from the data) are always involved almost simultaneously”.

On that account, it is therefore “impossible to go theory free in any study”. Using co-ordinated designs (both induction and deduction) is also consistent with Miles & Huberman (1994) who advise against favouring one extreme in multi-case research designs. Miles & Huberman claim that “tightly co-ordinated designs yield more economical, comparable and potentially generalisable findings and they are less case-sensitive and they allow bending data out of contextual shape to answer cross-case analytic question” (p.17). Figure 7 on p.97 neatly illustrates a visual representation of deduction and induction processes that were adopted for the purpose of this study.

97 Figure 7: Induction and Deduction

Deduction

Induction

Source: Farquhar 2012, p.24

The research benefited by using both elements of induction and deduction. As Perry (1998) puts it, a pure induction potentially prevents a researcher from enjoying the use of existing theory and a pure deduction restrict a researcher from developing new and useful theory. Parkhe (1993, p.256) emphatically dismisses following a purely inductive or deductive approach arguing that it is untenable and not necessary because the process of on-going theory development requires “continuous interplay” between induction and deduction. Indeed, the use of both elements of induction and deduction was very instrumental to this research in that the researcher was able to satisfy the third objective stated as:

“To contribute to the theoretical concepts of the dynamic capabilities and

networking” Observation Tentative Hypothesis Theory Pattern/ Occurrences Theory Hypothesis Observation Confirmation

98

Admittedly, the refined conceptual framework based on the insights from case studies was used as additional evidence to triangulate on the external reality of small born-global bio-tech firms in terms of their capacity to generate scientific knowledge. This also informed the types of research questions for the main study. Perry (1998, p.970) explains this more fully:

Prior theory informs all main data collection equally and theory is generated from all cases in one operation of cross-case data analysis across all the main cases.

Based on this assumption, it is safe to claim that theory has a key role to perform in case-study oriented research (COR). For this study, theory was developed from secondary data, within case analysis and the data from the “pilot” study this can be seen as the first stage of the theory development process. Perry (1998) makes a strong argument in favour of a two stage theory construction process. Perry argues that the position is consistent with the realism paradigm’s search for realities than regularities, for analytical generalisation as opposed to statistical generalisation (Farquhar, 2012; Yin, 2009). In concluding the debate on induction and deduction Emory & Cooper (1991, p.62) stress that “fact and theory (induction and deduction) are each necessary for the other to be of value”.

3.2.2 Ethnography

Ethnography emanates from the field of anthropology and it is firmly grounded in the inductive approach (Saunders et al., 2003). The research approach was chosen because of its ability to allow the researcher to engage with the subject under the microscope i.e. the researcher was invited to attend seminars on partnering held at various venues throughout the East Midlands. Engaging with the research subject this way enabled the researcher to collect rich data which significantly enhanced his understanding of their actions when are seeking business partners.

99

This is consistent with Saunders et al. (2003) who suggest that interacting with the subject is very important for qualitative researchers as they are able to interpret the social world the subjects inhibit and the way in which they interpret it. Remenyi et al. (1998) add that ethnography is used in business and management research because it allows a deeper understanding of organisational culture. Farquhar (2012) advises that although the research technique takes more time it is worthwhile as it helps to gain detailed insight into the research question/problem. Crucially, the research technique was chosen because of its ability to allow flexibility i.e. it enabled the researcher to respond to changes in the way small born-global firms engage with their partners in their search for scientific knowledge and technical know-how.