Estimación de la densidad de la madera en 5 especies con el resistógrafo

Management research involves a rich interplay between the researcher, the subject and the methodologies engaged (Checkland and Scholes, 1991). The nature of the subject guides the choice of methodology, which in turn determines what information is revealed on the subject. The constitution of the nature of the subject, the methodology employed, and the interpretation of this information then depends on the

epistemological perspective taken by the researcher. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge – what knowledge is, how it is acquired and what claims can be made about knowledge. Below I explain the epistemological perspective I have taken in this research.

Two radically opposed epistemologies are positivism and constructivism. They legitimate very different methods for assessing knowledge (Reed, 1999). Positivists hold that there is a ‘real world’ out there an objective and extrinsic truth that we can discover. Knowledge claims must pass a rigorous ‘trial by method’ (Reed, 1999). Constructivists hold that there is no reality for all practical purposes and all that we can do is deal with the world we live in which is constructed by the way people interact with each other. Knowledge claims are subject to more liberal evaluation. The underlying premise of positivism is that the task of researchers is to find reality rather than to create or interpret it and the focus is on description rather than prescription (Wicks and

Freeman, 1998). The underlying premise of constructivism is that reality is created through choices the researcher makes about what gets construed as a research problem, the investigative methods used and what constitutes observations and evidence (Mir and Watson, 2000). Constructivists challenge the notion that research is conducted by impartial, detached, value-neutral subjects, who seek to uncover clearly discernible

objects or phenomena. Rather, they view researchers as craftsmen, as toolmakers who are part of a network that creates knowledge and ultimately guides practice.

Mir and Watson (2000) have identified six important assumptions that are shared by all constructivists. First, knowledge is theory driven whereas positivists conceive of the research process as excavation to reveal naturally occurring insights. On the other hand, constructivists view the research process more as sculpting where the imagination or theory base of the researcher interacts with the phenomena to create a model of reality which we call knowledge. Second, the separation of the researcher and the phenomena under investigation is not feasible. Third, the separation between theory and practice is equally unfeasible. According to constructivists, practice exists both before and after

theory. Fourth, researchers are never objective or value-neutral. Fifth, research occurs within a community of scholarship where upon researchers are influenced by each other in their normal discourse. And lastly, constructivism constitutes a methodology rather than a method. A method is a tool or technique that is used in a process of inquiry whereas a methodology may be regarded as an “intricate set of ontological and

epistemological assumptions that a researcher brings to his or her work.” (Prasad, 1997 as quoted in Mir and Watson, 2000, p.944).

An alternative epistemology is interpretivism. It is not diametrically opposed to positivism or constructivism, rather it is based on an alternative belief about the nature of reality. Interpretivists hold that there are multiple realities out there that are taken from different descriptions – they are interpretations. There are multiple interpretations that don’t deny each other, they sit side by side. Interpretivist approaches depend less on experimentation and theory testing and much more on observation, comparisons and the construction of plausible theory. Interpretivist research draws on the notions of credibility to establish validity rather than upon generalisability as positivist research does (Lin, 1998).

Interpretivists emphasize rather than avoid a priori understanding (Alvesson, 2003). Indeed, many researchers believe that it is impossible to come to field research without any a priori assumptions or biases (Kaghan, Strauss, Barley, Brannen and Thomas, 1999). “The personal world of the researcher is a very rich resource for insight. Yet it is one often overlooked by science.” (Locke, Golden-Biddle and Feldman, 2004,

p.RM:B2). When I began working on this thesis, more than seven years ago I had very little personal experience in the biotech sector. I learned about the biotech

commercialisation process and strategy vicariously through the trials and triumphs of the CEOs and executives that I interviewed. However, as the years went by I found myself drawn deeper into the sector so that at completion of this thesis I have had first- hand experience in biotech commercialisation in a half dozen ventures. This experience has undoubtedly enriched my imaginative theorising capabilities. Whilst many of the elements of the Commercialisation Options Model prescribed in chapters six and eight have come from the case study analyses or the strategic management literature others have come from my experience founding and working in a variety of biotech start-up ventures. These personal experiences, which all occurred concomitant with this research, could be considered participant observation. Participant observation is a key element in who I have become as a researcher although it wasn’t part of my original methodology or plan. Since the objective of this thesis is an interpretivist/constructivist synthesis of academic and practitioner knowledge on the topic of commercialisation strategy a priori assumptions or biases are not considered to be an issue, but rather a source of enrichment of the synthesized knowledge.

Each epistemological approach differs in its slant as to the true meaning and value of data collected in qualitative research. The lines between epistemologies have become blurred with many perspectives overlapping (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Understanding the theoretical perspective taken in this thesis will help in understanding how I have construed the social world in my interpretation of my research, thus aiding a critical evaluation of my findings and conclusions.

Using industry related experiences I have provided interpretations of observations of content, structures and relationships in the data collected from the field. I have sought to understand commercialisation strategy in the biotech community from a biotech- practitioner’s perspective, adopting a research design that allowed the refinement and validation of my initial interpretations. A positivist approach has been rejected because it tends to reinforce the disjuncture between theory and practice by emphasizing testing at the expense of the creation of theory (Weick, 1989). Positivist epistemology begins with the hypothesis as given, saying nothing about the process of discovery (Marsden and Townley, 1999) – it does not support theory building around problems that are

recognized where the answer is not yet anticipated. I began this research with no idea as to how commercialisation strategy could be improved in biotech firms. An inductive interpretive / constructive research methodology has allowed the simultaneous

exploration of the strategic issues facing biotech firms and theorising as to how these issues could be better dealt with. It has facilitated the synthesis of academic and practitioner knowledge into a useful tool to guide biotech practitioners in the development and implementation of commercialisation strategy.