Search

Management academics have tended to rely on ethics codes developed by social researchers in related fields to inform their research practice. The point of this paper is to question whether this remains a viable approach in the current climate that is characterized by a significant increase in ethical regulation across the social sciences. We suggest that management researchers face ethical issues of a different nature to those most frequently confronted by other social science researchers, and argue for more explicit acknowledgement of contextual factors involved in management research. An exploratory analysis of the content of ethics codes formulated by nine social scientific associations is undertaken to identify the main ethical principles they cover and to analyse their underlying ethical tone. Drawing attention to the principle of reciprocity, which is found in very few codes, we suggest that an ethics code could be used to formulate new ways of thinking about management research relationships. Despite the risk that ethics codes may encourage instrumental compliance with minimal ethical obligations, we suggest they also have the potential to reflect a more aspirational agenda. The development of an ethics code for management research should therefore be seen as a potentially worthwhile project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the role of the research question in social research. It outlines what is taken to be the conventional view in many methodological discussions, namely, that research questions guide decisions about research design and research methods. This position is taken to imply that social researchers typically take the view that research methods need to be tailored to the research questions that guide an investigation. The paper questions how far this position pertains to actual research practice. Drawing on interviews with researchers about their practices in relation to mixed-method research, two discourses were found in the transcripts. A particularistic discourse that reflects the traditional view, whereby mixed-method research is viewed as only appropriate when research questions warrant it, was uncovered. In addition, a universalistic discourse, which sees mixed-method research as more generally superior, was also uncovered. The implications of these viewpoints for understanding the role of research questions are then discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article it is shown that the paradigm wars that raged concerning the incompatibility of quantitative and qualitative research have largely subsided. In the process, discussions of epistemological and ontological issues have become less prominent. The peace that has broken out has proved to be more favourable to research combining quantitative and qualitative research than was the case during the paradigm wars. Drawing on interviews with social researchers who employ a mixed‐methods approach and on the literature, it is shown that a spirit of pragmatism with regard to combining quantitative and qualitative research prevails which encourages researchers to consider using mixed‐methods research when the research question is suited to it. However, the issue of which quality criteria should be employed in investigations combining quantitative and qualitative research has not been given a great deal of consideration. The author argues for a contingency approach, in which issues to do with quality are decided in relation to the nature of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the relationship between journalists and social scientific organizations in the context of a professional conference. Social scientists perform a multi-functional role as researcher, teacher and expert. The academic conference provides an opportunity for all these roles to be engaged and as such is a political and social site where meaning is debated and new research born. The conference is also attractive to journalists as news fodder. This article considers the relationship between journalists and social scientific organizations in the context of a professional conference and seeks to explain the tensions that exist. It concludes that the two cultures of journalist and academic are in conflict where they converge. This article has explored the role of the conference in getting media coverage for the social sciences. This research reveals very real tensions both within the profession of social science research and between the social scientist and journalist. Between social scientists and journalists the tensions can be explained in part by the sharply differentiated cultures of public dissemination.

The main dimensions of the debate about the relative characteristics and merits of quantitative and qualitative methodology are outlined, emphasizing the philosophical issues which underpin much of the discussion. A distinction is drawn between epistemological and technical issues in relation to the controversy. Three areas are then selected which demonstrate a tendency for the debate to oscillate between epistemological and technical modes of expression. The question is raised as to whether it is possible to establish a clear symmetry between epistemological positions (e.g. phenomenology, positivism) and associated techniques of social research (e.g. participant observation, social survey). The conclusion is sceptical about the extent to which a neat correspondence can currently be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]