ELTRUN PhD Seminar 4 Feb 2003 Σύνθεση - Putting it together Δομή ποιοτικής/...

ELTRUN PhD Seminar 4 Feb 2003

Σύνθεση - Putting it together

Δομή ποιοτικής/ ερμηνευτικής έρευνας σε πληροφοριακά συστήματα

και κοινωνικές επιστήμες

Structuring a qualitative PhD &getting publications out of it…

Nancy Pouloudi

ELTRUN PhD Seminar, 4 Feb 2003 Nancy Pouloudi 2

Η παρουσίαση

• Starting small: papers– Συνήθη προβλήματα– Προτεινόμενη δομή

• Αντιστοίχιση με τη δομή ενός διδακτορικού

• Παραδείγματα, ‘από τη ζωή βγαλμένα’…

• Για να γράφουμε με άποψη & στυλ…


Πώς εκνευρίζουμε τους κριτές

1. Ασαφής διατύπωση ερευνητικού προβλήματος (“μάντεψε το ερευνητικό πρόβλημα”)2. Λάθος (υπερ-αισιόδοξη?) διατύπωση προβλήματος (“αυτό το paper θα αλλάξει το σκηνικό της έρευνας”)

3. Ελλειπές θεωρητικό υπόβαθρο (“είμαι ένας φτωχός και μόνος γελαδάρης – δεν έχω πού να στηριχθώ”)

4. Προβληματική μεθοδολογία (“σιγά μην αποκαλύψω τις πηγές μου!” “μα είναι προφανές τι έκανα & γιατί”)

5. Προβλήματα στην εμπειρική δουλειά (“εδώ τα καλά δεδομένα!”)

6. Δεν υπάρχουν συμπεράσματα (“αν δεν μπορείς να καταλάβεις τι έκανα και γιατί είναι σημαντικό δεν σου αξίζει να είσαι κριτής”)7. Τα συμπεράσματα είναι άσχετα (βλ.1, 4, 5, 6…)


Δομή ενός paper(με πλάγια οι ειδοποιείς διαφορές της ερμηνευτικής έρευνας)

1. Introduction– research problem and objectives– research context (scope & audience)

2. Theoretical background (literature review)3. Methodology

– what and why– how and why

4. Empirical data & analysis5. Conclusions

– summary– contribution (theory? practice? methodology?)– limitations and further research


Μεταφορά στο διδακτορικό

• Defining a research problem• Identify relevant research areas• Classify relevant ‘knowledge’• Identify gaps in the literature• Explore relevant methodologies to tackle research

problem (how & why can qualitative research help)

• Investigate relevant empirical material– ‘first level’ analysis: based on literature– ‘second level’ analysis: insights from the data

• Theoretical/ empirical/ methodological contribution


Corresponding chapter structure

1. Introduction2. Literature review3. Research methodology4. Description of empirical setting5. First analysis of empirical setting6. Second analysis of empirical setting7. Conclusions: overview, contribution, limitations &

further research

Μια απλή παρατήρηση: – εκτός από το 3 & το 7, ο τίτλος του κεφαλαίου πρέπει να

σχετίζεται με το διδακτορικό!


The 3 S’s

Story (research

problem)

Structure

Sentence


False assumptions

• Research is sequential and linear• First you ‘do’ then you ‘write up’


Methodology in interpretive research

• Philosophical assumptions (phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory…)

• Methodology (action research, grounded theory)

• Methods (case study)• Data Collection (what data? how are they

collected? who was approached? why?)• Data Analysis (common ‘themes’, differences

in interpretation)• Conclusions from the analysis


Let’s become specific


Nancy’s thesis

1. Interorganisational systems research issues2. The stakeholder concept in the strategic

management and information systems literature 3. Research methodology4. An interpretive approach to identify and analyse

interorganisational systems stakeholders5. Describing the drug use management domain from

a stakeholder perspective6. Instrumental and normative aspects of

interorganisational information exchange in healthcare

7. Conclusions and further research directions

Stakeholder analysis for interorganisational information systems in healthcare


Introduction

Ch. 1: Interorganisational systems research issues1.1 Drivers for adopting interorganisational systems1.2 Interorganisational systems as political systems1.3 Reviewing the interorganisational systems research

agenda1.3.1 Shifting concerns in information systems research and practice1.3.2 Shifting concerns in interorganisational systems research and practice1.3.3 Interorganisational systems stakeholders

1.4 The British healthcare environment1.5 Overview of the research contributions1.6 Structure of the thesis


Literature reviewCh. 2: The stakeholder concept in the strategic management and

information systems literature2.1 Definitions: who is a stakeholder?2.2 Stakeholder theories of management: descriptive, instrumental and normative aspects

2.2.1 Instrumental uses of the stakeholder concept2.2.2 Normative uses of the stakeholder concept

2.3 Information systems stakeholders2.3.1 Use of the stakeholder concept in information systems research

Stakeholder analysis to assist information systems planning and strategy formulation

Stakeholder analysis to assist information systems development and implementation

Ethical notions of stakeholding in information systems

2.3.2 Recent developments and challenges in the study of information systems stakeholders

Stakeholder analysis and soft systems methodologyStakeholder analysis and actor network theory

2.4 Summary and conclusions


Conclusions

Ch. 7: Conclusions and further research directions7.1 Overview of the research7.2 Research contributions

7.2.1 Theoretical contributionsInterorganisational systems stakeholdersDescriptive, instrumental and normative aspects of

interpretive stakeholder analysis7.2.2 Methodological contributions7.2.3 Practical contributions7.2.4 Overview of the research contributions

7.3 Limitations of the research approach7.4 Areas for further research


Some publishable stories


The ‘main’ published PhD paper

Pouloudi, A., & Whitley, E. A. (1997). Stakeholder Identification in Interorganizational Systems: Gaining Insights for Drug Use Management Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 6 (1), 1-14.

IntroductionA review of participants and stakeholders in information systems

development Stakeholder identificationFindings

Stakeholder identificationExamples of the viewpoints of the stakeholders

Conclusions…This evolved from an earlier ECIS paper (1995)

…11 citations


Paper on empirical data (1)

Pouloudi, A. (1997). Conflicting Concerns over the Privacy of Electronic Medical Records in the NHSnet. Business Ethics: A European Review, 6 (2), 94-101.

IntroductionBackgroundAn alternative approach to stakeholder analysisResearch findingsImplications for privacy and NHSnet successConclusions

…This evolved from an earlier ETHICOMP paper (1996)



Pouloudi, A. (1998). Stakeholder Analysis in Health Interorganizational Systems: The Case of NHSnet. In K.V. Andersen (Ed.), EDI and Data Networking in the Public Sector (pp. 83-107). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

IntroductionA stakeholder analysis approach for health interorganisational systemsBackground: why the NHSnet?Identifying the NHSnet stakeholdersDiscussing important issues for NHSnet use

The 2nd part of the ETHICOMP (1996) paper – analysis & appendix in the PhD



Pouloudi, A. (1999). Information technology for collaborative advantage in health care revisited. Information & Management, 35 (6), 345-357.

IntroductionResearch approahcNHSnet: a brief case descriptionNHSnet and CHINs: Reviewing the lessonsDiscussionConclusion

Based on Ferratt, T.W., Lederer, A.L., Hall, S.R. & Krella, J.M. (1996) Swords and plowshares: information technology for collaborative

advantage. Information & Management, 30 (3), 131-142


Paper on empirical data (4)Whitley, E.A., & Pouloudi, A. (2001). Studying the translations of

NHSnet. Journal of End User Computing 13(3), 30-40.

IntroductionUnderstanding the life of a projectThe sociology of translationViewing the translations in an information systems

projectFour moments of translationImplications beyond the NHSnetConclusions

This was written after the PhD – following one ‘further research’ lead


From empirical data to general issues (1)

Introna, L., & Pouloudi, A. (1999). Privacy in the Information Age: Stakeholders, interests and values. Journal of Business Ethics, 22 (1), 27-38.

IntroductionPrivacy as the freedom from the judgment of othersStakeholders and the interests of the “other”Framework for the analysis of privacy claims and risksPrivacy claims and risks in the British NHSConclusion

…This evolved from an earlier ETHICOMP paper (1998)… and helped me conclude the PhD analysis


From empirical data to general issues (2)

Pouloudi, A & Whitley, E.A. (2000). Representing human and non-human stakeholders: on speaking with authority. In Baskerville, R., Stage, J. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds.) Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology (pp. 340-354). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

IntroductionSpeaking with authorityThe NHSnetPatientsEncryption algorithmSummary and discussion

This was written after the PhD – following one ‘further research’ lead


On style…


The ‘macro’ structure of a qualitative PhD

• You decide the question (use the literature as ‘crutches’) and also supply the answer

• Ensure that the two fit together! • (and are reflected in the title!)• Writing is about managing the readers’

expectations

• Macro-structure (80,000 words):– introductory or lead-in (the boring bits?)– The Core (the original bits) (40-50,000 words)– afterword (will be taken seriously if core has been worthwhile)


The ‘micro’ structure of the PhD

• Chapter: about 10,000 words, 4 or 5 sections

• Managing expectations– headings/sub-headings/sections– verbal signposts and promises– literature review scopes readers’ views of

your own work (school of thought)– criticisms bid up the standards you have to

meet


2. CHAPTER TITLE

Opening paragraphs (1-4 paragraphs - first: chapter aim; last: chapter layout)

2.1 Subheading 1-2 paragraphs signposting the sub-sections

2.1.1 Subsection headingarguments…

2.1.2 Subsection headingarguments…

Informal subheading arguments…

2.5 Conclusions(start with summary, finish with introduction to next chapter,

AND HAVE SOMETHING IN-BETWEEN)


Replanning the first draft• Write out headings and subheadings as in text• One line summary for each paragraph (core argument)• Check for

– simple (not complex)– big blocks of argument– logical sequence– developmental, cumulative (not recursive)

• Think of alternative ways of structuring and try them out (using the summaries) – You’ll throw away your 1st draft, but you need it to get to the 2nd!!

• Final check– headings: informative, at the right level – paragraphs: enough or too many in the subsection– paragraphs and sections are linked


Seek feedback!

– the obvious bits: spell check the document, READ it before you ask others to read it

– the difficult part: be critical of your work (why am I saying this? Can I back it up? Do I back it up?)

– paragraph rework and replanning– ask colleagues and staff for comments– filter criticism: why is the particular person

telling me this (what can I gain from their perspective?)


Writing style - DON’Ts

• The Agatha Christie syndrome: never reveal where you’re heading

• English or Greek?: “on the other side there exists...”

• Don’t make big claims (unless you can support them with references or empirical evidence); be critical (doesn’t mean dismissive!)

• Avoid excessive use of first person (confidence vs. arrogance)


Writing style - DO’s

• Signpost your sections/chapters: tell the reader how they relate

• Write simple, clear, SHORT sentences• Give all details on the references and be

consistent (e.g., APA style)• It helps to keep a complete list of your

references together (ENDNOTE helps)• Use a consistent style throughout

(for headings, fonts, headers, references…)

ELTRUN PhD Seminar 4 Feb 2003 Σύνθεση - Putting it together Δομή ποιοτικής/...

Documents

Transcript of ELTRUN PhD Seminar 4 Feb 2003 Σύνθεση - Putting it together Δομή ποιοτικής/...