Summary lectures Qualitative Innovation Analytics
Lecture 1.1: Introduction
Pro’s of qualitative research:
Qualitative research methods seem to suit almost any research question
Pitfalls/con’s of qualitative research:
It is very hard, the qualitative methodology offer no clear “recipes” on how to do research.
The methodology always have to be adjusted to the research design
There is a lack of uniform way to assess research quality. It requires the researcher to be
very comfortable with ontology and epistemology.
Research has two components:
“Genius”: Identify a good research question (most tricky part)
Research design
o Make a good idea researchable You need to understand whether an idea is good
and find an answer to the question that is at the core of this idea
Six stages in the research design cycle:
Identify research question
Literature review
Case selection
Data collection
Data analyses
Interpretation
It is an iterative process; Start with a question, after literature review
the question will be adapted. You will go several times through the
circle before you have a successful study.
Two core methodological dimensions to move through the Research Design Cycle:
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches
o Quantitative approach (not used in this course)
o Qualitative approach (focus of this course)
Inductive vs. Deductive Approaches
o Inductive approach: Start with a phenomenon you want to understand, look at data
and from analysing the data and have a conclusion based on this (e.g. grounded
theory)
o Deductive methods: Start with a hypothesis you want to test, collect data to draw
conclusions
Lecture 1.2: Relevance of a Research question
Criteria for a good research question (by Hancké, 2009). A research question should be:
Relevant (see Oost’s model): It needs to fill in a research gap
In line with empirical evidence: You need to do pre-research for a good research question
Concrete, yet abstract: Not to detailed
Falsifiable: A research question needs to be asked in such a way that you can be wrong
Simple (not simplistic): Need to be understandable for others, asked in a way others can
relate with it
Researchable: It needs to be possible to have data about it
Explains existing events and does not predict the future: It needs to have an end (in time and
space). You cannot predict the future with a research question
1
, Parsimonious: As few explanations as possible, to explain an outcome as high as possible
The structural model of a research question (by Oost):
How to explain that your research question is relevant? (justification of research proposal by Oost)
Newsworthiness: Is the answer new or not known?
o Has the research question already been answered?
o Has the research question been answered completely?
o Has the research question been answered adequately?
o Why is it striking that this research question has not yet been answered adequately?
Usefulness: How do we benefit from knowing the answer on this research question?
o Theoretical relevance (basic research)
Will the research develop a new theory?
Will it adapt or improve a (part of) an existing theory?
How does it do that?
o Societal relevance (applied research)
What problem or desired situation exists?
When will this problem be solved or desired situation be reached?
What knowledge gap exists? What knowledge do we need in order to find a
solution? Is it necessary to use scientific methods to find the answer?
Scope: Do we gain a maximum of information? Limit of the space and time that you will look
at to answer the research question
o Is the research question informative enough?
o Couldn’t you expand the question, for instance
by broadening the sample (units studied)
by broadening the features of the sample studied
o Answer the research question at the level where you consider as many cases as
possible and as few cases as necessary to obtain a generalizable answer.
Introduction consists of three parts:
Highlighting literature gap: What needs to be addressed
Research question: Which question will be addressed in the report
Highlight what would be gained if you answer the question
2
, Lecture 2: Literature review - Disciplinary Embedding of a RQ
Literature review (disciplinary embedding):
Requires an explanatory text
Anticipates and gives an overview of the theoretical part or theoretical chapter of your
research paper
Guides your literature review
Functions of a literature review (disciplinary embedding):
Tells the reader about the approach taken to study the phenomenon you are investigating,
from which perspective will you conduct the study
Allows you to arrive at the ‘state of the art’ in the literature (stepwise delineation), where
the knowledge of today ends and the ignorance starts. You should shed light on this
Guides your choice of assumptions (presuppositions) and concepts
Tells the reader why you made these choices (therefore related to the scope of your
research question)
Four criteria of a good literature review (or disciplinary embedding):
The field of study is unambiguous: Clearly say from which disciplinary perspective and topic
you are looking at this phenomenon
o Tell the reader how you want to approach a specific topic or empirical phenomenon:
Which point of view will you take?
o Each research project is embedded in a broader field of study
o E.g. Aging population, you can look at voting behaviour (does this change), or how
can you enable positive aging
The research theme is well defined: You need to arrive at the state-of-the-art
o State of the art is where the light ends (lamp) and the dark starts
o Each specific field of study contains numerous research themes
o E.g. ‘Youth unemployment of academics’ is a research theme of labour economics
Be clear about concepts, assumptions and variables: You should be clear about three
aspects:
o Concepts:
Avoid inventions, but use the concepts in the literature
Be clear how you agree/disagree with these concepts
o Assumptions:
Different research areas/schools of thought have different understanding of
the aspects that matter
o Specific aspects (variables):
Impossible to study all aspects that might be related to your research
question, so choose the crucial ones
The rational is clear: You need to explain all points and all decisions
o Explain your choice of field of study
o Explain how your research theme is related to your field of study (state-of-the-art)
o Explain the concepts you use, assumptions you make, and choices you take
o Be explicit E.g. I look at X, because I think this is the most telling way for
addressing the phenomenon of X
For a good literature review, you can follow a specification process:
Delimit you research subject step by step
Until you arrive at the ‘state of the art’ in the literature
Explain your specification process
3
Lecture 1.1: Introduction
Pro’s of qualitative research:
Qualitative research methods seem to suit almost any research question
Pitfalls/con’s of qualitative research:
It is very hard, the qualitative methodology offer no clear “recipes” on how to do research.
The methodology always have to be adjusted to the research design
There is a lack of uniform way to assess research quality. It requires the researcher to be
very comfortable with ontology and epistemology.
Research has two components:
“Genius”: Identify a good research question (most tricky part)
Research design
o Make a good idea researchable You need to understand whether an idea is good
and find an answer to the question that is at the core of this idea
Six stages in the research design cycle:
Identify research question
Literature review
Case selection
Data collection
Data analyses
Interpretation
It is an iterative process; Start with a question, after literature review
the question will be adapted. You will go several times through the
circle before you have a successful study.
Two core methodological dimensions to move through the Research Design Cycle:
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches
o Quantitative approach (not used in this course)
o Qualitative approach (focus of this course)
Inductive vs. Deductive Approaches
o Inductive approach: Start with a phenomenon you want to understand, look at data
and from analysing the data and have a conclusion based on this (e.g. grounded
theory)
o Deductive methods: Start with a hypothesis you want to test, collect data to draw
conclusions
Lecture 1.2: Relevance of a Research question
Criteria for a good research question (by Hancké, 2009). A research question should be:
Relevant (see Oost’s model): It needs to fill in a research gap
In line with empirical evidence: You need to do pre-research for a good research question
Concrete, yet abstract: Not to detailed
Falsifiable: A research question needs to be asked in such a way that you can be wrong
Simple (not simplistic): Need to be understandable for others, asked in a way others can
relate with it
Researchable: It needs to be possible to have data about it
Explains existing events and does not predict the future: It needs to have an end (in time and
space). You cannot predict the future with a research question
1
, Parsimonious: As few explanations as possible, to explain an outcome as high as possible
The structural model of a research question (by Oost):
How to explain that your research question is relevant? (justification of research proposal by Oost)
Newsworthiness: Is the answer new or not known?
o Has the research question already been answered?
o Has the research question been answered completely?
o Has the research question been answered adequately?
o Why is it striking that this research question has not yet been answered adequately?
Usefulness: How do we benefit from knowing the answer on this research question?
o Theoretical relevance (basic research)
Will the research develop a new theory?
Will it adapt or improve a (part of) an existing theory?
How does it do that?
o Societal relevance (applied research)
What problem or desired situation exists?
When will this problem be solved or desired situation be reached?
What knowledge gap exists? What knowledge do we need in order to find a
solution? Is it necessary to use scientific methods to find the answer?
Scope: Do we gain a maximum of information? Limit of the space and time that you will look
at to answer the research question
o Is the research question informative enough?
o Couldn’t you expand the question, for instance
by broadening the sample (units studied)
by broadening the features of the sample studied
o Answer the research question at the level where you consider as many cases as
possible and as few cases as necessary to obtain a generalizable answer.
Introduction consists of three parts:
Highlighting literature gap: What needs to be addressed
Research question: Which question will be addressed in the report
Highlight what would be gained if you answer the question
2
, Lecture 2: Literature review - Disciplinary Embedding of a RQ
Literature review (disciplinary embedding):
Requires an explanatory text
Anticipates and gives an overview of the theoretical part or theoretical chapter of your
research paper
Guides your literature review
Functions of a literature review (disciplinary embedding):
Tells the reader about the approach taken to study the phenomenon you are investigating,
from which perspective will you conduct the study
Allows you to arrive at the ‘state of the art’ in the literature (stepwise delineation), where
the knowledge of today ends and the ignorance starts. You should shed light on this
Guides your choice of assumptions (presuppositions) and concepts
Tells the reader why you made these choices (therefore related to the scope of your
research question)
Four criteria of a good literature review (or disciplinary embedding):
The field of study is unambiguous: Clearly say from which disciplinary perspective and topic
you are looking at this phenomenon
o Tell the reader how you want to approach a specific topic or empirical phenomenon:
Which point of view will you take?
o Each research project is embedded in a broader field of study
o E.g. Aging population, you can look at voting behaviour (does this change), or how
can you enable positive aging
The research theme is well defined: You need to arrive at the state-of-the-art
o State of the art is where the light ends (lamp) and the dark starts
o Each specific field of study contains numerous research themes
o E.g. ‘Youth unemployment of academics’ is a research theme of labour economics
Be clear about concepts, assumptions and variables: You should be clear about three
aspects:
o Concepts:
Avoid inventions, but use the concepts in the literature
Be clear how you agree/disagree with these concepts
o Assumptions:
Different research areas/schools of thought have different understanding of
the aspects that matter
o Specific aspects (variables):
Impossible to study all aspects that might be related to your research
question, so choose the crucial ones
The rational is clear: You need to explain all points and all decisions
o Explain your choice of field of study
o Explain how your research theme is related to your field of study (state-of-the-art)
o Explain the concepts you use, assumptions you make, and choices you take
o Be explicit E.g. I look at X, because I think this is the most telling way for
addressing the phenomenon of X
For a good literature review, you can follow a specification process:
Delimit you research subject step by step
Until you arrive at the ‘state of the art’ in the literature
Explain your specification process
3
