Generally research methodology is – “the procedural framework within which the research is conducted. It describes an approach to a problem that can be put into practice in a research programme or process” (Remenyi et al, 2000:28).
A comprehensive research methodology is important as it will provide a clearer understanding of how to enhance the rigour of adding something of value to the body of knowledge. Rigour is concerned with whether the research has been carried out with an appropriate and sound research methodology.
4.5.1 Positivist research methodology for a study on innovation effectiveness This methodology is embraced in this social science even though this methodology is “borrowed from the natural sciences” (Remenyi and Money, 2004:123).
It has been indicated that “only by applying the methods of natural science, according to the positivist school of thought, will social science (including organisational research) ever be able to match the achievements of natural science in explanation, prediction, and control” (Lee, 1991:343). Such an indication is simplistic as the difficulties of capturing social reality by positivist research methodologies are said to be the reasons that organisational research, like the rest of social science, has not
106
yet reached the same level of scientific maturity that characterises natural science (ibid.).
With such difficulties being the case, then why is this study is posited in the realm of positivism? Surely with a subject as complex as innovation, it make no sense or logic to do a positivist research here. If it is so, why then is innovation researched thus? From the literature, there are studies on innovation carried out as positivist researches, especially those that are focused on the ‘input-output’ divide. Are such approaches suitable for studies on innovation effectiveness?
To address the above questions, this researcher has innovation effectiveness researched with a methodology designed in the positivist tradition to gain first-hand experience and knowledge in relation to the “uniqueness of experience as the basis of knowledge” (Giddens, 1975:2). To gain this first-hand experience and knowledge, this researcher follows closely the research methodology and methods that are traditionally designed for a positivist research.
By thus doing, this researcher may acquire first-hand knowledge on why a social science research such as his may not reached the same level of scientific maturity that characterises natural science as cited above. With this experience and knowledge, he will be in a better position to think of recommendations for future research at the end of this study.
4.5.2 Research methods and methodologies
Mingers defines method as “a well-defined sequences of operations that if carried out proficiently yield predictable results” (2001:241-2). Its synonym is ‘techniques’. As for methodology, it is defined in the context of a philosophy as “a structured set of guidelines or activities to assist in generating valid and reliable research results” (ibid.). A methodology can consist of various ‘methods’ and it is “more general and less prescriptive than a method” (ibid.).
In this dissertation, methodology is focused in the domain of philosophy and methods are the specific research approaches used in practice for data collection, data analyses, results interpretations, etc. Depending on a researcher’s philosophical stance, his/her research methodology/methods may differ from others and this will differentiate his/her contribution to the body of knowledge.
107
Methodology and methods are essential parts of the operationalisation of this study’s research constructs.
4.5.3 Operationalisation of the research constructs
Operationalisation is one of the positivist implications in Table 3.2 and it is indicated there that concepts need to be operationalised in a way to allow facts to be measured quantitatively.
Before the constructs in Figure 4.3 are operationalised, their meaning must be explicit and specified. The definitions of these constructs are found in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Definitions of the research constructs
Construct Definition Reference
Knowledge management
It is the combination of management enablers for fostering knowledge consistently and knowledge processes for managing knowledge effectively.
Adapted from Lee and Choi (2003:181).
Organisational learning
It is the set of actions (knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organisational memory) within the organisation that intentionally and unintentionally influence positive organisational change.
Templeton et al (2002:189)
Error management
culture
It is organisational practices related to communicating about errors, to sharing error knowledge, to helping in error situations, and to quickly detecting and handling errors. van Dyck et al (2005:7) Innovation effectiveness It is a combination of:-
(a) Organisational inventiveness - the degree of belief that an organisation is actually producing creative (novel/useful) ideas (services/products).
(b) Organisational performance – the degree of overall success, market share, growth rate profitability, and innovativeness in comparison with major competitors.
Adapted from Lee and Choi (2003:222)
From the above table, the three reference studies of the four constructs are integrated in this study as an accumulative expanded research of them through replication. These three references will be referred to as the three base studies.
4.5.4 Replication of three base studies for this study
The three base studies used for replication, found in Table 4.1, are reiterated here thus: -
108
• Study A - “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organisational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination” (Lee and Choi, 2003). • Study B - “Development of a measure for the organisational learning construct” (Templeton et al, 2002).
• Study C - “Organisational error management culture and its impact on performance: a two-study replication” (van Dyck et al, 2005).
Study A is the primary backbone for this research and its model is as follows: -
(Adapted from: Lee and Choi, 2003:191) Figure 4.5 Model from Study A
Figure 4.5 can be reconfigured to correspond more closely with the proposed research model of Figure 4.3 per this line of reasoning: -
• The ‘KM enablers’ has culture and learning included in Study A and these inclusions open the doors for EMC and OL to be admitted as enabling constructs. • For the ‘KM creation process’, Lee and Choi have used Nonaka & Takeuchi’s SECI processes which have broadly been regarded as one of KM.
• With organisational inventiveness (innovation) cited by Lee and Choi as a ‘KM intermediate outcome’, it can combine with ‘organisational performance’ to become innovation effectiveness. This is quite similar to Section 4.4.1 where – ‘innovation + organisational performance → innovation effectiveness’.
Per the above reconfiguration, the replication of Study A, Study B and Study C are featured in Figure 4.6. KM enablers Culture: Collaboration Trust Learning IT support Organisational performance Combination Externalisation Knowledge creation process Socialisation Internalisation Organisational inventiveness (Innovation) KM intermediate outcome
109
Figure 4.6 Incorporation of Study B and Study C into Study A
From Figure 4.6, all the questionnaire survey items of this study are replicated here from the three base studies. The appropriate use of the questionnaire items from Study ‘A + B + C’ starts with a pilot study of them.