The rules of the game

After this semester’s study, I think the rules of the game that Kerry are trying to pass to us is: selecting an interesting topic and research question(s); making good arguments for the theory you select and results that support your research questions.   

Writing up for qualitative research-some thoughts

There are many types of qualitative researches (e.g. positive qualitative research, interpretive qualitative research and grounded-theory qualitative research). Different types of qualitative research may lead to different styles of writing up research paper. For example, for positive qualitative research and interpretive research, it is better to write literature review and develop theory, which is followed by data analysis; for grounded-theory qualitative research, researchers always start writing of data, after which researchers may seek a suitable theory for explaining the observations.

Also, I found it quite useful to use more intuitive tools (e.g. maps, diagrams, headings, structure) to assist your writing. This is particularly useful for qualitative research since this type of research focuses on investigating the process of a particular phenomena, which usually the dynamic and complex development through different stages.

In terms of structure of qualitative research paper, it is a good idea to use a topic sentence in the beginning of each paragraph and a concluding sentence in the end of each paragraph. This can facilitate readers to get understanding the ideas of the research paper. Also, the flow of the whole paper and the flow between paragraphs are important. The flow can keep readers’ attentions and make the research paper logically written. Lastly, different paragraphs in the research paper should always be focusing on the research questions. This can strength the research question and enable writers to support their argument.  

Rewriting for the data you collect

Kerry mentioned in class that the first writing up for qualitative research paper will always be horrible. Some unexpected or discouraged things may happen: the results from the data you collected do not match the theory; the results of from the data may be totally different from the theory the paper is arguing; the results from the data may not be the one you expect. From Kerry’s experience, a good qualitative research paper has to be wrote, improved and garnished many times (at least three times).

I totally agree with Kerry. From my experience, even for a quantitive research paper, it may need to write many times before it is ready. For example, the results from regression may not be significant, which requires the reshaping of the model; the results imply extra findings, which needs us to add up additional points that is not expected at the beginning; the results seems weird, which requires us to delete some extreme data (e.g. outliers). Furthermore, researchers have to present their draft research paper in front of colleagues or conferences where a lot of suggestions and recommendations come in. This requires a lot of amendments for the research proposal. Lastly, even when the research paper is sent to journals for publish, there may be still a long way to go before it can be published. I heard from supervisor that it is very likely or even impossible for a paper to be published when it is first time submitted. The reviewers may make many comments on research draft. I know one friend that it took him eight years to publish one of this paper. That sounds scary, but I know that is the value of published papers.

But there is two things I am wondering. First, we have to rewrite and reshape our research draft if the results from the data are not consistent with our expectation or are weird. Will this distort our original idea (e.g. the evidence we collect may not be the one testing our original research question)? Does this mean the data we collected does not match our research questions and theory? Is it a good idea to recollect data that is more pertinent to our research question and theory? Second, sometimes, we can not directly ask questions from participants. Instead, we have to rely on interviewees’ answers and guess/infer the implications for our research questions. I am wondering is this ok because our thinking may be different from what  the interviewees think? Also, how about interviewees intentionally misguide researchers in their answers?             

Theory development in quantitive and qualitative research

From my experience, theory development for quantitive research is different from that for qualitative research. For quantitive research, the researchers first need to envisage a causal relationship between two or more variables based on the gab of existing literature, which is essential.  Then, researchers need to make sense of the causal relationship by linking the proxies or attributes of one variable with those of the other variable(s) based on the knowledge in existing literature. This process of making sense of causal relationship is regarded as theory development in quantitive research.

For qualitative research, there is no need to predict the causal relationship between two variables because the researchers do not know the which variable will have effect on which variable (in other words, the direction of the causality of the relationship is not know in the theory development section or the relationship between the variables is dynamic where the direction of the causal relationship may change depending on contingent factors). The focus of theory development in qualitative research is a) how the application of an existing well-known theory will assist researchers to investigate the unknown relationship between variables; b) why the use of a particular theory is suitable/plausible in examining the relationship between two variables in a particular context.  The justification of using a well-known theory in investigating the relationship between two variables is regarded as theory development in qualitative research.            

NVivo-some thoughts

Currently, NVivo is one of the most popular softwares for qualitative researches. It is so powerful since it allows us to share projects with colleagues; importing and analysing any combination of documents, spreadsheets, databases, audios, video or pictures; manage our bibliographical data; code our sources with the application of dragging and dropping which are quick and easy; have a more intuitive view of our data which assist us to generate findings.

There are also some limitations of this NVivo. It is not able to recognize some types of documents (e.g. JPF). It can not help researchers to transcribe voice interviews to plain words (we have to manually transcribe voice interviews to words, which takes plenty of time). NVivo just provides some assistance to view the data in a relatively clear way, which is a dispensable tool for qualitative researchers. Barry this in mind, Nivo can be seen as an editing tool rather than analysing tool. After all, it is researchers who have to think and analyse data. However, it would be great if NVivo can incorporate some analysing functions (e.g. incorporating some analysing functions alike the regressions analysis in most quantative research softwares).       

If used properly and efficiently, I think NVivo is of great value. Particularly, I reckon NVivo will be of great importance in big qualitative research project.  

How to make contributions in writing academic papers

There are various ways of making contributions to existing literature when writing academic paper. It can come from the improvement of a particular research design/model; it can come from a better research sample; it can come from the advancement of existing knowledge or creating new knowledge. Among these, I personally think the third type of contribution is relatively most valuable when we write papers.

In management accounting research, one technique to make knowledge contribution is to explore and inject knowledge from various disciplines to accounting literature. For example, we can combine variables in psychology and social science literature with accounting variables in a particular context. Although, the variables may not be new or have limited significance in their own discipline, significant contribution can be made when across-disciplines are connected.

Another technique to make knowledge contribution is to connecting accounting theoretical knowledge based on accounting practice. Accounting academic study should be able to assist daily-used accounting practice. Accounting academics may go into the field and find the problems/weakness/challenges/difficulties of the actual accounting practices. Contribution can be made if accounting researchers could find solutions to those problems.      

The Impact of Management Control System on Social Capital in Supply Alliances

Background and Motivation

In recent times, economic organisations have sought to expand their business through alliances. This has led to a proliferation of many forms of inter-firm alliances among which supply alliances have become a popular strategy. Alliances are said to be vehicles through which organizations gain competitive advantage and by which they improve efficiency and effectiveness (Ring and Van de Ven 1994; Cousins and Spekman 2003). Whilst alliances are said to have the potential to improve organisational performance, existing studies have documented a high failure rate of these alliances (Spekman and Isabella 2000; Ireland et al. 2002). A substantive research has focused on identifying economic control problems in inter-firm alliances (e.g. opportunism, moral hazard and coordination problems) and seeking control mechanisms to mitigate these economic control problems (Van der Meer-Kooistra and Vosselman 2000; Langfield-Smith and Smith 2003; Dekker 2004; Caglio and Ditillo 2008).   

Anoop and Tallman (1998) stress that more attention should also be paid on relationship management process in inter-firm alliances. There are several studies investigating the role that social capital plays in searching and managing the relationship between alliance partners. According to Michael and Deepa (2000), social capital can be defined as a) bridging relationships across various social connections (bridging social capital) b) bonging group members with a common identity and purpose (bonding social capital). Based on a case study of eighteen multinational alliances, Wong and Ellis (2002) argue that ‘social networks provide a valuable resource for reducing alliance partner search costs’ (p.267). Hitt et al. (2002) investigates the importance of social capital in multinational alliances by comparing alliances with an East Asian (Chinese, Korean and Japanese) partner and alliances with a Western partner. They conclude that many Asian firms have a more competitive advantage in the global markets than Western firms due to the high attention to social capital.

In accounting literature, many researches have highlighted that MCS has a significant social effect in managing relationship in alliances (Mahama 2006; Ahrens and Chapman 2007). Chenhall et al. (2010) investigates the relationship between MCS and social capital in and between organisations. They classify three taxonomies of MCS and examine how different MCSs affect the bridging and bonding social capital. Based on framework of formal and informal MCS developed by Chenhall and Morris (1995), they propose that a) formal controls may have a positive effect on bridging social capital through the demonstration of capabilities and reputation to external parties b) formal controls may have a negative effect on bonding social capital due to the damage to customary informal controls c) informal controls facilitate bonding social capital as they allow close and frequent interactions based on interpersonal connections. Based on Simons(1995)’ framework of four levers of control, Chenhall et al. (2010) frames that a) belief systems, boundary systems, diagnostic control systems, and interactive control systems enable the bonding of social capital because a shared, core and collective value can be facilitated under these systems b) belief systems, diagnostic control systems, and interactive control systems have a positive effect on bridging social capital as assist the network extensions c) the mix of different levellers of control may result a contradictory effects of management of control systems on social capital. Chenhall et al. (2010) employ Adler and Borys (1996)’s notion of enabling and coercive controls to theorise the relationship between MCS and social capital. They contend that enabling controls ‘enhance bonding by encouraging identification with goals’ while coercive controls inhibit bonding as inconsistent with sharing of ideas and values that are central to the way that NGO’s operate’ (p.743).

Chenhall et al. (2010) test their theoretical framework based on a non-government organization and get supportive results. Chenhall et al. (2010)’s study is among the first to elaborate the relationship between MCS and social capital in and between organisations. It contributes to our understanding by demonstrating that MCS could either enhance or inhibit social capital. However, Chenhall et al. (2010) regard bridging and bonding social capital as two different dimensions of social capital and investigate the link between MCS and each of these two dimensions of social capital separately. Newell et al. (2004) highlight the need of strong bonding social capital before effective bridging social capital. This suggests the importance of examining bridging social capital and bonding social capital jointly within the entire “social capital network” in alliance study. Further, Chenhall et al. (2010) provides limited understanding of the process of how each linkage between MCS and social capital develops through time. Therefore, this study aims to locate inter-firm alliances within social capital network and investigate the role of MCS in the evolvement of social capital network.

Board Research Question

How MCS influences the evolvement of social capital network in the context of supply alliances?

Theory Development

A substantive research has used actor-network theory (ANT) to study social implications in inter-firm relationship (Callon et al. 1986).  First, Chua and Mahama (2007) posit that the study of MCS in inter-firm alliances should be beyond the dyadic relationship between alliance partners and extend to the entire network with which the alliance interrelates. ANT enables us to study alliance network through social capital and investigate how MCS is implicated in such social capital network. Second, ANT treats human and non-human systematically as actors and focus on the relationality of actors. According to ANT, MCS, bridging social capital, bonding social capital can be seen as non-human actors. ANT seeks to explore how these three actors act on each other and how the relationship among them evolves through time. Lastly, some ANT theorists argue that how two actors influence each other also depends on the relationship between these two actors and other actors. This suggests that “the actors cannot be studied without at the same time paying attention to the network through which their identities are defined (p.52)” (Chua and Mahama, 2007). Therefore, all the actors are directly or indirectly connected and co-influence the performaity of the network. This indicates that bridging and bonding social capital together build up an entire social capital network and they should not be studied separately. The performaity of social capital network is co-influenced by the MCS, bridging social capital and bonding social capital, as well as the relationship between these actors. ANT provides us with a lens to study how MCS, bridging social capital and bonding social capital and the relationship among them jointly influence the evolvement of social capital network.   

Research design and methods

This paper will use a case study method to address research questions. Case study is extensively used in social science studies as it enables researchers to observe a social phenomenon in its raw form (Yin, 2003). This paper aims to investigate the “social capital network evolvement” under the influence of MCS. Therefore, case study is advocated in this paper. Further, according to Benbasat et al. (1987), case study is particularly useful to study “how” questions. Given that the research question in this paper focuses on how MCS influences the evolvement of social capital network, a case study is considered as appropriate. Finally, Coooper and Morgan (2008) contend that case study is superior to other research methods by providing the understanding of uncertain, instable, unique situations. This paper addresses the research question based on the context of inter-firm alliances. Inter-firm alliances are operating with great environment uncertainty (e.g. opportunistic behaviours from alliance partner; market uncertainty). In addition, alliances are operating by at least two distinct interdependent firms, in which both cooperation and conflict are pervasive. These features determine the uncertain, instable and unique context of the research problem in this paper. Therefore, the use of case study is said to be adequate. 

Interviews, observations and archival document will be used to facilitate the case study. The use of observations aims to identify how social capital (bridging social capital and bonding social capital) evolves in raw form. Interviews enable us to collect relevant information about the use of MCS; to verify whether the results of our observations are consistent with interviewee’s views to ensure that the observations have no bias. Archival documents are selected to collect historical information about alliances and to verify the use of MCS is used during a particular period.

The data used to test the research question is to be collected from a small constructions and development company (A) located in Canberra. First, construction and development company heavily relies on buy-supply relationships. This provides potential rich sources of supply alliance that is the context the research question is based on. Second, small- and medium-sized firms are “building more and tighter relationships with other companies to achieve greater external economics of scale, market strength, or exploit new opportunities” (Rosenfeld, 1996, p.247). This highlights the importance of developing and maintaining social relationships in small- and medium-sized firms, which facilitates the examination of research question. Finally, A has an Asian director. Relationship building is predominately in Asian culture (Hitt et al., 2002). Social relationships between organizations are ubiquitous and are of importance in all business dealings of Asian companies (Luo, 2000). This provides a good lens for us to study the social capital network.