RESEARCH METHODS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS:
RESEARCH METHODS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS:
THE CYCLICAL GROUNDED APPROACH
Ceyhun Elci,
London South Bank University, BCIM / Economics Department
103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, United Kingdom
elcica@lsbu.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
The international business discipline is reviewed upon a platform of transformation of global business enterprises through a micro and macro-economic prospectus. The Cyclical Grounded Framework, is discussed which aims to control and improve the research in international business development processes. The key characteristics of an integrating international business environment have consequently necessitated the use of an algorithmic Cyclical Grounded approach that would provide a rotating analysis, which could overcome the orthodox grounded theory criticisms. The problem approach that adopted here is of a continuous changing environment, which is complex for the orthodox grounded approach to identify and sieve the research from the ground-up. However, an algorithmic cyclical method can identify and justify the use, of alternative qualitative techniques such as generating synergy in global international business environments.
Keyword: Dynamic Cyclical Thinking, Global Approach, Research Methods.
INTRODUCTION
While qualitative research methodologies have grown in importance the approach to understand the differences between research testing and theory, which has become blurred. The international business arena, has accepted a qualitative stance to develop research approaches with dynamic management techniques, incorporating the cyclical openness to move in and out of a system thinking approach that shall provide cause effect parameters for a global business enterprise approach. This means that qualitative techniques used in international business planning research, focusing on a dynamic cyclical recall method, can be linked with global management thinking strategies. The management targets interlinked with the literature and the hypothesis can provide the basis of identifying the means of staging a direction to new theory.
The increasing debate of international business exposure has propelled research in the international business field. The research methodology within the field has therefore grown. Taking on a cross-discipline approach to methods, as a result testing a diverse range of methodologies. However, not all of these cross method approaches are truly representative of the quality of research in the international business arena. For instance, the last two decades have seen an increase in qualitative papers dealing with soft-concept ideas, pertaining to testing concepts and theories. However, not truly taking the research approach seriously to its extents in dealing with hard-concept ideas that deal with identifying theory or creating theory. However, this is not the case for just the increasing qualitative research, but also stands true for recent quantitative research as well. Criticisms can be viewed against both approaches in under-valuing the real practicabilities of research methodologies. Taking grounded theory, cf. Glaser (1992); for instance, is used by researchers in papers based on a purposive sample 1
with minimal interviews and just described judgements, lacking any theoretical exposure, as identified, cf. Locke (1996), grounded theory has been increasingly used across the international business environments, say economics, management, strategy, marketing, finance and accounting, just naming a few sub-disciplines that make up the international business arena. However, Locke (1996) states the approach is being used as a generic approach and not just to connect to a theoretical indifference.
Therefore, the area of applicability of research methodologies in international business, needs examination and by taking a focused framework on the true techniques of grounded theory methodology, techniques used in international business planning can be linked with global management thinking strategies, to establish dynamic thinking to provide a systematic forecast approach to identify the short-comings of a research and therefore, understand ones research method to ones research (a common linking process).
In the international business area, grounded theory needs a revamp to provide an essence of global management thinking strategies to highlight, a cyclical grounded development of soft and hard transition frameworks in international business management methodologies. The cyclical grounded approach needs an increased acknowledgment in the international business academic field. This should provide an understanding of the essence of a qualitative method in placing fundamental insight into the technicalities and limitations of the orthodox grounded theory, which can provide a developed theory and aid effective decision making processes. The paper here within examines and discusses the potential of a change in the understanding of research methodologies in international business arena, which has grown with potential for qualitative research. The cyclical approach is an answer to the construction and application of a diverse grounded theory that can minimise the over-run of grounded theory research, which in true sense has no common characteristics associated to the orthodox grounded theory approach.
However, many application are still in their infancy in relation to international business dynamic thinking and bringing these approaches together for a clustered cyclical grounded approach, can provide a clearer view to international business research, which is a foreseeable opportunity discussed here within.
RESEARCH METHODS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
The international business discipline of research has a ranging background from international economics, marketing, management, strategy, business enterprise, finance, accounting and a number of other business aspects, common to the national economy that has ever since evolved to the international platform as business has grown globally, drawing attention upon the four different international platforms: global, inter-national, trans-national and multi-national, (see section "Impact of an international platform on grounded theory").
The research in the area of international business has however evolved over the last two centuries with increased practical use, leading to increased research in international business activities, cf. Peterson (2004); Noorderhaven (2004); and Westwood (2004). This research is not limited to quantitative research that has been the norm for a long-time. As the accuracy of data and quantitative appraisals have been the structures of research in the field. However, recent advances over the last few decades have increased the use of qualitative research in international business.
The use of quantitative and qualitative techniques have increased largely in use in international business research in recent years, however, varying in the range of use of either techniques depends upon the sub-international business category. The
2
methodological approaches linked to international business have came from cross-discipline interaction with political, psychological, sociological and ethnographical behaviour, dominated by the humanistic interaction of the enterprise and the management enterprise diversions, cf. Brown (1994, 1995); Parry (1998); Peterson (2004). All adapted to the business discipline with a subjective view to gather a stance of importance. However, never really acting in the true interest of the discipline itself, which has brought a subjective view of the area and created critical view problems; discussed here within.
THE ORTHODOX GROUNDED THEORY
The orthodox grounded theory approach, traditionally grew from a sociological domain discipline practice, cf. Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998); and Glaser and Strauss (1967); which exemplified the discovery of a grounded theory that opened a constructive qualitative approach able to identify and bring about theory. The essence of theory is a research target, therefore the ability of the grounded theory in its orthodox sense provided new methodologies essential in most disciplines, cf. Brown (1994, 1995); Hunt and Ropo (1995); and Parry (1998); associated with organisation studies, opened the grounded theory to cross-disciplines. Creating a crossover of the grounded theory to international studies, which led to its adoption in the international arena, cf. Marschan-Piekkari and Welch (2004a, 2004b). The orthodox grounded theory, created unconventional and unfamiliar theories as the method lacked coding in recent research that has brought criticisms to varying interpretations of theories coming out of grounded approach research. The grounded theory garbed attention in research with the seminal publication, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), this seminal examination and introduction of the grounded theory set forth the rationale for a distinctive scientific and data-allocation technique to establish workable theories. The grounded theory is essentially an inductive examination focusing on social interaction to construct grounded theory that relies upon discursive data, through observations rather than simply testing theory and describing empirical phenomena’s.
However, in the context of international business, the grounded theory has gained foundation and backing as an experiential qualitative methodology, cf. Marschan-Piekkari, et al. (2004); and Noorderhaven (2004), as the major distinction between grounded theory and the traditional fieldwork is the concept that in international business the grounded theory is less concerned with descriptive and holistic ideologies, than taking a generalised stance. The comparative analysis of research is important in grounded theory, cf. Westwood (2004), which allows for a wider basis of identifying theories from the get-go and does not have a single view on an intensive single ideology research group.
EVOLUTION OF GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH
New research, has taken an intense view on providing greater knowledge and formidable examinations of literature to draw on the gathering of relevant literature that will illustrate new approaches to gaps that either exists in present theories or the new fast moving evolution of cross-discipline research. In this case the merger of international inter-discipline business approaches. For instance the vast interplay of finance with international management, economics, marketing, etc. and vice-versa of international business frameworks. The basis of the evolution of the grounded theory can be drawn from a given set of key characteristic, cf. Kerlinger (1973), that states the key characteristics to be, a theory that is set from an inter-construction of concepts, definitions and interrelated literature that constructs propositions that can 3
present a systematic relationship, between many variable aspects that help explain and predict phenomena theory, through a grounded approach. The approach is vastly adoptable to the international business research field, as the diversity of the field needs a well-focused management strategy that can help discover the basic conceptual elements of new theories, providing a comparative method in a systematically integrated international business field. The problem with new research, has been that only a limited systematic, comparative, discursive gathering of literature is applicable, to certain approaches in building logical dubious and priori assumptions that are capable to invoke new theories. However, new research is now-days more abstract, which creates problems to say that new-research focused on grounded theory, is really capable of building new theories. This is however, due to much new research being over-looked as model testing rather than grounded. However, they are pushed forward in the belief that it’s a theory-based research. This is a behavioural problem and can lead to more problems further along in the research.
THE CONTEXTUAL ORTHODOX GROUNDED THEORY
The orthodox grounded theory has its origins from a symbolic platform of inductive discovery of theory from the ground up. Meaning grounded theory holds that the theory begins with an individual engagement within a research situation, requiring the researcher to understand the full exposure of translation affects and the environmental responses within the research discipline.
The general problem that dissects the cross approach of a fully contextual, satisfying grounded theory within the conducted research in an international business discipline, is the misconceived guidelines to undertake grounded research and the coding problems associated to grounded recognition theory and advancement. The paradigm that this creates is the mix of using grounded theory to validate theories that lack the key characteristics and procedures of theory, however, nevertheless show signs of models that could evolve better with simpler methods.
The problem many conceptualise from the evolution of research and the historical stance of research, on the understanding of grounded theory approaches are these problems. The discovery of the grounded theory, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), was written at an era with less concentration on the inductive ideology of theory, lacking the legitimacy in the research field as a comparative measure to logical positivistic research approaches. Nevertheless, this has its own problems within the evolution of international business research, providing a logical positivistic approach to simple modelling, which is being stretched to a complex logic aspiration. Which has meant a vast amount of new research is lost in the research methodology translation and therefore, lacks the momentum to be what it really is supposed to be. The reason for this stance is the attraction of the qualitative nature of the grounded theory. There is a place for qualitative research within the domain of international business; however, this must not be taken likely to be the first opportunity. The grounded theory approach should be the virtue of examination of literature in a cyclical grounded approach, to identify the true opportunities of theory aspiration. The contextual key characteristics argue this as it suggests, the theory is grounded in the words and actions of the research undertaken, as the approach is suitable to examine the behavioural interaction, in the international business field, this means the cross nation interaction element to its research is important.
4
GROUNDED THEORY PROCESS
To understand the capabilities of the cyclical grounded approach, one needs to first identify and understand the basic principles of the orthodox grounded theory. Which means understanding the coding phase of research. This begins with identifying the area of research; a potential theory can be hypothesised. The management process is the basis of discovery and identifying the literature. Constant comparative analysis is the basis of any grounded approach. The theory should emerge quickly under the orthodox approach, if the literature is well explored, therefore the subject of research will be well examined under a grounded method, for as coding takes place the theoretical propositions should come to the surface. Therefore, constant comparative studies are essential, this shall provide theoretical sampling, which is a purposive sampling method that will increase the diversity of the research sample, in essence searching for different characteristics and properties that were not obvious prior to the theoretical sampling. The uniqueness of the grounded theory is that the literature is not exhausted prior to the theoretical research, as is in many research methods. Here, it is rather interlinked and consulted as an aspect of the inducsive, iterative and interactional procedures of the core categories of the substansive theoretical literature undertaking, therefore this shall provide direction to relevant literature, (here, is the start of the problem of coding in international business, referred to later, see section "cyclical grounded approach"), that will flag the relevant data-collection (qualitative content). This is also a problematic scenario in the orthodox approach, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967); that provide a complex identification, that has resulted in further confusion in regards to Glaser and Strauss’s earlier works, in regards to the nature of the induction coding area.
The process of flagging means the literature review procedure, under a grounded theory creates a path to get closer to the theoretical sources, bringing conceptual links to the explanatory literature. This is maintained till the literature sources are saturated. Meaning, no extra knowledge to the theoretical conceptual research is added; this indicates that the research is moving to the sorting code level (see figure 1).
FIGURE 1. ORTHODOX GROUNDED APPROACH
This leads to the start of the action research, initiating the coding process, as the literature is analysed through an open or closed coding process, which takes a line-by-line (detailed) analysis, flagging and coding the essential theoretical detailed essentials for the research. This linked with an over-lapping cause effect of understanding the translation from the saturated literature to coding, identifies the provisional explanatory theory, the theoretical proposition of the research. Through comparative categorising, identifying high occurring samples. This high-low frequency of coding is the essence of moving forward through the grounded approach.
5
The process continues till the coding process is saturated as no additional comparative categories are identified (a problem that is simplified in the cyclical approach, discussed later). The benefits of the coding process in grounded theory, allows for a wider literature focus, this means that grounded theory suits a qualitative framework that is essentially a characteristic of survey’s, experimental and case studies, which can be combined and integrated into the grounded theory, cf. Clandinin and Connelly (1994); and McKinley-Wright (1995), furthermore, one can take a historical prospectus to grounded theory, cf. Szabo and Strang (1997); cf. Corbin (1998) for the introspective prospectus, and cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), for a numerical analysis.
Once the coding is categorised the research could progress through an identification process to elaborate upon the grounded theory phenomenon, leading to an explanatory approach. This is called the axial coding phase (see figure 1); this is illustrated as the latter third phase, after the pre-axial and coding.
The axial phase builds relationships between the hypothesised theory and the grounding of literature, achieved through dynamic system thinking through a cause effect to create interrelationships to form the theory. This dynamic system thinking leads to the final phase of the grounded theory, this final phase is the theory development, creating a core category, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967). This core category integrates all the phases to offer the explanation of the phenomenon grounded theory, for the ground-up ideology is perfectly lined from beginning to end, however, this simplicity attracts researchers to a complex approach in essence.
IMPACT OF AN INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM ON GROUNDED THEORY
The misconception in international business is the problems of new research, as researchers enter research ignorant of the theory construction; or either the literature relating to the phenomenon that is trying to focus research upon believing the theory will emerge from similar data, cf. Goulding (2002). The main problems associated with the methodology appear to stem largely from its misuse and abuse. This construes the problems associated with new research in international business, to stem from largely the misuse and exploitation of grounded theory, as many new researchers, not just PhD work, but also post-doctoral (including general academic and professional), private and public research are categorised as following grounded theory, however do not, follow the principles layed out in figure 1. This has been argued to be more the case in some research, rather than others. However, this is not true, cf. Mullins and Roessier (1998), Parry (1998) and numerous new research over the last decades, have consequently been organised with a hard belief that grounded theory was the best policy, meaning its not just a few. There is a profound amount of ignorance and miss matching of research methods, cf. Baker, et al. (1992) and Locke (1996). This has increasingly created an abundance of research violating the principles of grounded theory, across disciplines. However, it has become increasingly of concern in international business. Mainly, due to the diversity of the discipline, for the diversity of the inter-national business platform, ranges from the inter-national to the global dimensions. To understand the complexity of international business research, one needs to understand the dimensions of international business. The four segment dimensions of international business are:
�� Inter-national - activities that involve imports and exports and cross-border trade activities.
�� Multi-national - activities of Multi-National Companies (MNC) taking the production of activities to foreign countries for market access and economies of scale, production and marketing in multiple foreign locations.
6
�� Trans-national - involves activities when a corporation builds their operations around globally integrated supplier networks. The production of components is established in foreign markets to take advantage of specialisation economies of scale. The components are then transfers through the network to an assembly point for final production and then, they use the network to distribute the end product to a global audience, global marketing.
�� Global - involves activities on a global scale, interaction of a number of operating segments.
The problem is with the understanding of these differences, as they vary the degree of action research in each sub-international platform (see figure 2), illustrated as the per-action research, which identifies the literature and the capacity for saturation of the knowledge base in each sub platform. Each field has a varying degree of action research, which is important when considering the aspect of research in the international business arena. For instance the global dimension will have a greater complex system thinking strategy for action research than the inter-national demission. The action research will vary in complexity creating a soft or hard concept research coding bases in grounded theory principles. Therefore, the sub-categories of international business research do need to be established at the start of international business research to have an understanding of the action research volume.
FIGURE 2. SUB-INTERNATIONAL GROUNDED APPROACH
The use of partial grounded theory along other approaches can be clearly an approach, cf. Skodal-Wilson and Ambler-Hutchinson (1996), especially for the international business discipline. However, this needs to be clearly stated and needs the cyclical grounded approach to have an appropriate and practicable position in the international business research.
THE CYCLICAL GROUNDED APPROACH
The cyclical approach has the capacity to blend the problems and draw solutions upon factors that act as deterrents to using appropriate grounded theory characteristics. As 7
the factors that lead to the troubled problems of the orthodox approach, are the new research techniques used inappropriately with combined research methods, particularly in the case of grounded theory and intentional business. The problems are recognised in the international business field, with vast new research believing that their research will lead to some groundbreaking theory. However, the problem of this is that obviously not all-new search will lead to outstanding theory observations. This is usually due to the intensity and interpretation of data that can take a long time to saturate, the consequence is that at the beginning of the research it may seem grounded theory is the most appropriate form of research method, however not so the case as time evolves.
The cyclical grounded theory approach is a management based cognitive thinking strategy. That revolves around the cyclical contextuality, connecting the framework that can identify the interdisciplinary research of international business, this is derived into a cyclical cognitive control platform, interlinking the different scholarly views, able to focus on the categorising of literature and transforms the international business environment research to re-codify the grounded theory to take a dynamic cyclical management framework, capable of flagging new literature that is possible to speed up the process and provide direction and discretion in new research, identifying the true research method approach.
Creating a cyclical approach at each phase, tangent from the grounded theory is a key characteristic of an integrated international business domain. This necessitated the use of an algorithmic cyclical grounded approach that is developed from a combination of action research, essential to understand the algorithmic cycle.
The basis of overcoming the orthodox grounded theory criticism, discussed throughout this paper came from the action research interaction with grounded theory. As was discussed, what lacked with the orthodox grounded approach in new business research, was the dominance of the real theoretical grounded research and the identification of a final subjective theory, strong enough to hold under either the soft or hard concept and not buckle with obstacles that draw upon further integrated action research. This can be overcome with systematic/dynamic cognitive thinking and cause effect, as action research offers a connection of constant updating and implementing new literature in the sub-international business dimensions. Action research offers a practical and theoretical link to the pre-axial coding and literature gathering, (see figure 3); the action research increases the means of generating and proving scientific theory. This is constructed from parallel action research that can update the orthodox grounded theory as the basis of the grounded theory is expanded, by dynamic expansion, through system thinking at a comparative level.
FIGURE 3. GROUNDED ACTION RESEARCH
8
Action research is advocated as a dual approach, cf. Lau (1997), Hult and Lennong (1987); however, by linking it with grounded theory, action research provides the missing component for a basic cyclical approach. This is illustrated through simultaneous practical problem solving as the literature and the scientific knowledge is expanded. Under this situation of figure 3, the action research is performed collaboratively to draw data feedback in a cyclical process, aimed at increasing the understanding of the research. The inclusive action-research brings more initial starting knowledge, lowering the chances of failure.
Expanding the inclusive, action research to a quadratic algorithmic cyclical level is what the cyclical grounded theory is adapted to do. Therefore, expanding the action research into the grounded phase platforms, the knowledge and literature is expanded at each grounded technicality phase level, this provides a continuous expansion, providing a rotating analysis to the complex of pre-phase coding, coding and post-coding, phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 respectively, in the context of the international business research methodology studies. Which overcomes the criticisms with the orthodox grounded theory.
This combines the orthodox grounded theory with a cyclical, action research management approach to have cyclical knowledge flagging and constant updating, with cyclical action research gathering at all three phases of the orthodox grounded approach. This is illustrated here, see figure 4, the cyclical approaches adheres to improve the criticism of the orthodox Glaser and Strauss ideology, expanding and providing an understanding of the concept in terms of an international business approach, see figure 5.
FIGURE 4. CYCLICAL ACTION RESEARCH GROUNDED APPROACH
The cyclical grounded theory approach incorporates the key principles of the traditional Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory, however, taking it to the next evolution of interaction with the environment. Which depends on the dimension of research being undertaken. The key improvements are the integration of constant environmental changes in an algorithmic stance, to provide an improved action research capacity of constant evaluation, of the researched domain and the literature and the reformulation of the coding process, to handle the introduction of new knowledge and literature continuously throughout the research. This can provide a more stable research stance of adopting the correct methodology and further improve the research theory. As illustrated in figure 4, the action research becomes a continuous dominant factor in the grounded theory, providing continuous knowledge in the research area, which is essential in a fast moving research area like international business. For business, is not just influenced by the changing environments, but the
9
complexity of a quad dimension of research capable disciplines (see figure 5) of international translation exposure.
The apparatus of the quad international sub-platform dimensions, are introduced (see figure 5) through the cyclical action research, in order to provide greater updated infrastructure to the large global domains, that were previously not of little concern within the national infrastructure of traditional research work in business.
FIGURE 5. INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM CYCLICAL GROUNDED
As figure 4 and figure 5, illustrates the phases of reconnaissance and monitoring, are improved through the cyclical improvements at each phase and coding sample level, which used for data collection, coding and analysis. These phases of coding provides a dynamic move from restructural coding importance, slowly saturating the relevance of literature and the research level, in contrast to the orthodox tradition of saturation occurring at the end of the pre-coding. However, under the cyclical process saturation occurs at the end of all three phases, providing greater in-depth grounded theory analysis.
CYCLICAL AND BLENDED LEARNING MANAGEMENT
However, the cyclical process is able to work on this base by it self, without requiring the importance of linking the processes of the three phases of coding that is lacking from both the orthodox grounded theory and the developed cyclical ideology. How, this can be resolved is through the process of blended learning techniques that is lacking within the domain of research structuring and linking of research methodology characteristics and key principles. This is especially important in the area of international business, with the great diversity of a simple sub-platform dimension of business practices, cultural clashes and ethical practices; cf. Annells (1996); Grisar-Kassé (2004).
Even though blended learning is in its infancy the applicability of blended learning, to blend the international business reasoning between the phases, identified of grounding an algorithmic cyclical thinking, closes the vital importance gap that can occur in between the translation and exchange exposure that occurs between coding phases, both decoding to the next phase and encoding back to update the research through action research cycling.
Most of the research in blended learning is in the effective means of combing modes of delivery and learning styles; cf. Orey (2002), Collins and Moonen (2001). In the domain of grounded theory the applicability is in the blending of action research and the key principles of grounded theory (see figure 6). Here it is illustrated that some overlaps between the pure action research sessions of continuous action, applied updated knowledge transfers incorporate the process to have an effective grounded
10
theory, harder then the soft-phase pure grounded theory. The blended learning overlaps do provide a stance of linking the implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and amendment plans that are constantly active with the action research domain of this theory as the phase’s lapse and the volume of literature increases.
FIGURE 6. BLENDED LEARNING CONCEPTUAL LINK
Understanding the importance of the need for a comfortable interconnection between action researches at the basic level represents a successful understanding of the research at hand. This can be implemented into the constructed cyclical grounded approach to provide the miss-amended synergies (this can also be implemented into the orthodox grounded approach) that will comfortably implement, the action research. Construing a cyclical algorithm at each phase and translating them to the next phase, grounded through the principles and to the next phase of coding, where the action research continues to the final post-coding phase, in a clear and simple-cut process without disintegration or loss of knowledge as the blended learning seals this loss (see figure 7). Creating a blended buffer zone to safeguard any disintegration of important dynamic action research that is being constantly generated. Which creates a practical cyclical approach for international business, when the quad platforms of international exposure are implemented.
FIGURE 7. BLENDED CYCLICAL GROUNDED APPROACH
CONCLUSION
The qualitative techniques used in international business planning can be linked with global management thinking strategies. Therefore, the essence of global management 11
thinking strategies can highlight, the cyclical grounded development of soft and hard transition frameworks in international business management methodologies. The capabilities of the cyclical grounded approach it not limited to qualitative analysis, which the orthodox Grounded Theory approach is traditionally used to investigate. The cyclical approach runs in cycles to run management thinking techniques in a rotation pattern to analyse qualitative and quantitative literature sieving far more theory and eventually identifying the appropriate direction of analysis. This is a reformulation of the orthodox grounded approach that can outline future integration patterns and works well in identifying the hard and soft techniques of research, for the cyclical element is furthermore linked to control, which will complete the full cycle of an international research methodology approach. All in all sealed with a blended learning process to move between phases of the grounded research theory being undertaken. Identifying a widened ability of a cyclical approach over the orthodox theory.
REFERENCES
Annells, M. 1996. Grounded theory method: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of enquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 379-393.
Baker, C., West, J. & Stern, P. 1992. Method slurring; the grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355-1360.
Brown, A. 1994. Politics, symbolic action and myth making in pursuit of legitimacy. Organization Studies, 15 (6), 861-878.
Brown, A. 1995. Managing understandings: politics, symbolism, niche marketing and the quest for legitimacy in IT implementation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 951-969.
Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. 1994. Personal experience methods. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research: 413-427. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Collis, B. & J. Moonen 2001. Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London, Kogan Page Ltd.
Corbin, J. 1998. Alternative interpretations: valid or not? Theory and Psychology, 8(1), 121-128.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence v. Forcing. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Goulding, C. 1998. Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50-57.
Goulding, C. 1999. Heritage, nostalgia, and the 'grey' consumer. The Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(6/7/8), 177-199.
Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded Theory; A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London: Sage.
Grisar-Kassé, K. 2004. The Role of Negative Personal Experiences in Cross-Cultural Case Study Research: Failure or Opportunity? In Marschan-Piekkari, R. &
12
Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 144-161. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hult, M. & S. Lennung 1987. Towards the Definition of Action Research: A Note and Bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2): 241-250.
Hunt, J.G. & Ropo, A. 1995. Multi-level leadership: grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 379-412.
Kerlinger, F. 1973. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Lau, F. 1997. A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies. Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information systems and qualitative research: 31-68. London: Chapman & Hall.
Locke, K. 1996. Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5 (3), 239-245.
Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. 2004a. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. 2004b. Qualitative Research Methods in International Business: The State of the Art. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 5-24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, C.A., Penttinen, H. & Tahvanainen, M. 2004. Interviewing in the Multinational Corporation: Challenges of the Organisational Context. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 244-263. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McKinley-Wright, M. 1995. I never did any fieldwork, but I milked an awful lot of cows! Using rural women's experience to reconceptualise models of work. Gender and Society, 9 (2), 216-235.
Morse, J.M. 1994. Emerging from the data: the cognitive process of analysis in qualitative enquiry. In Morse, J.M. (Eds.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods: 23-43 Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mullins, J. & Roessier, R. 1998. Improving employment outcomes; perspectives of experienced counsellors regarding the importance of counselling tasks. Journal of Rehabilitation, 64(2), 12-18.
Noorderhaven, N.G. 2004. Hermeneutic Methodology and International Business Research. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 84-104. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Orey, M. 2002. One Year of Online Blended Learning: Lessons Learned. Paper presented as the Annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association: 314–318. Florida: Sarasota.
Parry, K.W. 1998. Grounded theory and social process: a new direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1), 85-105.
Peterson, R.B. 2004. Empirical Research in International Management: A Critique and Future Agenda. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 25-55. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Skodal-Wilson, H. & Ambler-Hutchinson, S. 1996. Methodological mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing Research, 45(2), 122-124.
13
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research: 273-285 Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Szabo, V. & Strang, V.R. 1997. Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2), 66-74.
Turner, B. 1981. Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising the cognitive process associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15(3), 225-247.
Westwood, R. 2004. Towards a Postcolonial Research Paradigm in International and Comparative Management. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 56-83. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
14
THE CYCLICAL GROUNDED APPROACH
Ceyhun Elci,
London South Bank University, BCIM / Economics Department
103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, United Kingdom
elcica@lsbu.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
The international business discipline is reviewed upon a platform of transformation of global business enterprises through a micro and macro-economic prospectus. The Cyclical Grounded Framework, is discussed which aims to control and improve the research in international business development processes. The key characteristics of an integrating international business environment have consequently necessitated the use of an algorithmic Cyclical Grounded approach that would provide a rotating analysis, which could overcome the orthodox grounded theory criticisms. The problem approach that adopted here is of a continuous changing environment, which is complex for the orthodox grounded approach to identify and sieve the research from the ground-up. However, an algorithmic cyclical method can identify and justify the use, of alternative qualitative techniques such as generating synergy in global international business environments.
Keyword: Dynamic Cyclical Thinking, Global Approach, Research Methods.
INTRODUCTION
While qualitative research methodologies have grown in importance the approach to understand the differences between research testing and theory, which has become blurred. The international business arena, has accepted a qualitative stance to develop research approaches with dynamic management techniques, incorporating the cyclical openness to move in and out of a system thinking approach that shall provide cause effect parameters for a global business enterprise approach. This means that qualitative techniques used in international business planning research, focusing on a dynamic cyclical recall method, can be linked with global management thinking strategies. The management targets interlinked with the literature and the hypothesis can provide the basis of identifying the means of staging a direction to new theory.
The increasing debate of international business exposure has propelled research in the international business field. The research methodology within the field has therefore grown. Taking on a cross-discipline approach to methods, as a result testing a diverse range of methodologies. However, not all of these cross method approaches are truly representative of the quality of research in the international business arena. For instance, the last two decades have seen an increase in qualitative papers dealing with soft-concept ideas, pertaining to testing concepts and theories. However, not truly taking the research approach seriously to its extents in dealing with hard-concept ideas that deal with identifying theory or creating theory. However, this is not the case for just the increasing qualitative research, but also stands true for recent quantitative research as well. Criticisms can be viewed against both approaches in under-valuing the real practicabilities of research methodologies. Taking grounded theory, cf. Glaser (1992); for instance, is used by researchers in papers based on a purposive sample 1
with minimal interviews and just described judgements, lacking any theoretical exposure, as identified, cf. Locke (1996), grounded theory has been increasingly used across the international business environments, say economics, management, strategy, marketing, finance and accounting, just naming a few sub-disciplines that make up the international business arena. However, Locke (1996) states the approach is being used as a generic approach and not just to connect to a theoretical indifference.
Therefore, the area of applicability of research methodologies in international business, needs examination and by taking a focused framework on the true techniques of grounded theory methodology, techniques used in international business planning can be linked with global management thinking strategies, to establish dynamic thinking to provide a systematic forecast approach to identify the short-comings of a research and therefore, understand ones research method to ones research (a common linking process).
In the international business area, grounded theory needs a revamp to provide an essence of global management thinking strategies to highlight, a cyclical grounded development of soft and hard transition frameworks in international business management methodologies. The cyclical grounded approach needs an increased acknowledgment in the international business academic field. This should provide an understanding of the essence of a qualitative method in placing fundamental insight into the technicalities and limitations of the orthodox grounded theory, which can provide a developed theory and aid effective decision making processes. The paper here within examines and discusses the potential of a change in the understanding of research methodologies in international business arena, which has grown with potential for qualitative research. The cyclical approach is an answer to the construction and application of a diverse grounded theory that can minimise the over-run of grounded theory research, which in true sense has no common characteristics associated to the orthodox grounded theory approach.
However, many application are still in their infancy in relation to international business dynamic thinking and bringing these approaches together for a clustered cyclical grounded approach, can provide a clearer view to international business research, which is a foreseeable opportunity discussed here within.
RESEARCH METHODS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
The international business discipline of research has a ranging background from international economics, marketing, management, strategy, business enterprise, finance, accounting and a number of other business aspects, common to the national economy that has ever since evolved to the international platform as business has grown globally, drawing attention upon the four different international platforms: global, inter-national, trans-national and multi-national, (see section "Impact of an international platform on grounded theory").
The research in the area of international business has however evolved over the last two centuries with increased practical use, leading to increased research in international business activities, cf. Peterson (2004); Noorderhaven (2004); and Westwood (2004). This research is not limited to quantitative research that has been the norm for a long-time. As the accuracy of data and quantitative appraisals have been the structures of research in the field. However, recent advances over the last few decades have increased the use of qualitative research in international business.
The use of quantitative and qualitative techniques have increased largely in use in international business research in recent years, however, varying in the range of use of either techniques depends upon the sub-international business category. The
2
methodological approaches linked to international business have came from cross-discipline interaction with political, psychological, sociological and ethnographical behaviour, dominated by the humanistic interaction of the enterprise and the management enterprise diversions, cf. Brown (1994, 1995); Parry (1998); Peterson (2004). All adapted to the business discipline with a subjective view to gather a stance of importance. However, never really acting in the true interest of the discipline itself, which has brought a subjective view of the area and created critical view problems; discussed here within.
THE ORTHODOX GROUNDED THEORY
The orthodox grounded theory approach, traditionally grew from a sociological domain discipline practice, cf. Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998); and Glaser and Strauss (1967); which exemplified the discovery of a grounded theory that opened a constructive qualitative approach able to identify and bring about theory. The essence of theory is a research target, therefore the ability of the grounded theory in its orthodox sense provided new methodologies essential in most disciplines, cf. Brown (1994, 1995); Hunt and Ropo (1995); and Parry (1998); associated with organisation studies, opened the grounded theory to cross-disciplines. Creating a crossover of the grounded theory to international studies, which led to its adoption in the international arena, cf. Marschan-Piekkari and Welch (2004a, 2004b). The orthodox grounded theory, created unconventional and unfamiliar theories as the method lacked coding in recent research that has brought criticisms to varying interpretations of theories coming out of grounded approach research. The grounded theory garbed attention in research with the seminal publication, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), this seminal examination and introduction of the grounded theory set forth the rationale for a distinctive scientific and data-allocation technique to establish workable theories. The grounded theory is essentially an inductive examination focusing on social interaction to construct grounded theory that relies upon discursive data, through observations rather than simply testing theory and describing empirical phenomena’s.
However, in the context of international business, the grounded theory has gained foundation and backing as an experiential qualitative methodology, cf. Marschan-Piekkari, et al. (2004); and Noorderhaven (2004), as the major distinction between grounded theory and the traditional fieldwork is the concept that in international business the grounded theory is less concerned with descriptive and holistic ideologies, than taking a generalised stance. The comparative analysis of research is important in grounded theory, cf. Westwood (2004), which allows for a wider basis of identifying theories from the get-go and does not have a single view on an intensive single ideology research group.
EVOLUTION OF GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH
New research, has taken an intense view on providing greater knowledge and formidable examinations of literature to draw on the gathering of relevant literature that will illustrate new approaches to gaps that either exists in present theories or the new fast moving evolution of cross-discipline research. In this case the merger of international inter-discipline business approaches. For instance the vast interplay of finance with international management, economics, marketing, etc. and vice-versa of international business frameworks. The basis of the evolution of the grounded theory can be drawn from a given set of key characteristic, cf. Kerlinger (1973), that states the key characteristics to be, a theory that is set from an inter-construction of concepts, definitions and interrelated literature that constructs propositions that can 3
present a systematic relationship, between many variable aspects that help explain and predict phenomena theory, through a grounded approach. The approach is vastly adoptable to the international business research field, as the diversity of the field needs a well-focused management strategy that can help discover the basic conceptual elements of new theories, providing a comparative method in a systematically integrated international business field. The problem with new research, has been that only a limited systematic, comparative, discursive gathering of literature is applicable, to certain approaches in building logical dubious and priori assumptions that are capable to invoke new theories. However, new research is now-days more abstract, which creates problems to say that new-research focused on grounded theory, is really capable of building new theories. This is however, due to much new research being over-looked as model testing rather than grounded. However, they are pushed forward in the belief that it’s a theory-based research. This is a behavioural problem and can lead to more problems further along in the research.
THE CONTEXTUAL ORTHODOX GROUNDED THEORY
The orthodox grounded theory has its origins from a symbolic platform of inductive discovery of theory from the ground up. Meaning grounded theory holds that the theory begins with an individual engagement within a research situation, requiring the researcher to understand the full exposure of translation affects and the environmental responses within the research discipline.
The general problem that dissects the cross approach of a fully contextual, satisfying grounded theory within the conducted research in an international business discipline, is the misconceived guidelines to undertake grounded research and the coding problems associated to grounded recognition theory and advancement. The paradigm that this creates is the mix of using grounded theory to validate theories that lack the key characteristics and procedures of theory, however, nevertheless show signs of models that could evolve better with simpler methods.
The problem many conceptualise from the evolution of research and the historical stance of research, on the understanding of grounded theory approaches are these problems. The discovery of the grounded theory, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), was written at an era with less concentration on the inductive ideology of theory, lacking the legitimacy in the research field as a comparative measure to logical positivistic research approaches. Nevertheless, this has its own problems within the evolution of international business research, providing a logical positivistic approach to simple modelling, which is being stretched to a complex logic aspiration. Which has meant a vast amount of new research is lost in the research methodology translation and therefore, lacks the momentum to be what it really is supposed to be. The reason for this stance is the attraction of the qualitative nature of the grounded theory. There is a place for qualitative research within the domain of international business; however, this must not be taken likely to be the first opportunity. The grounded theory approach should be the virtue of examination of literature in a cyclical grounded approach, to identify the true opportunities of theory aspiration. The contextual key characteristics argue this as it suggests, the theory is grounded in the words and actions of the research undertaken, as the approach is suitable to examine the behavioural interaction, in the international business field, this means the cross nation interaction element to its research is important.
4
GROUNDED THEORY PROCESS
To understand the capabilities of the cyclical grounded approach, one needs to first identify and understand the basic principles of the orthodox grounded theory. Which means understanding the coding phase of research. This begins with identifying the area of research; a potential theory can be hypothesised. The management process is the basis of discovery and identifying the literature. Constant comparative analysis is the basis of any grounded approach. The theory should emerge quickly under the orthodox approach, if the literature is well explored, therefore the subject of research will be well examined under a grounded method, for as coding takes place the theoretical propositions should come to the surface. Therefore, constant comparative studies are essential, this shall provide theoretical sampling, which is a purposive sampling method that will increase the diversity of the research sample, in essence searching for different characteristics and properties that were not obvious prior to the theoretical sampling. The uniqueness of the grounded theory is that the literature is not exhausted prior to the theoretical research, as is in many research methods. Here, it is rather interlinked and consulted as an aspect of the inducsive, iterative and interactional procedures of the core categories of the substansive theoretical literature undertaking, therefore this shall provide direction to relevant literature, (here, is the start of the problem of coding in international business, referred to later, see section "cyclical grounded approach"), that will flag the relevant data-collection (qualitative content). This is also a problematic scenario in the orthodox approach, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967); that provide a complex identification, that has resulted in further confusion in regards to Glaser and Strauss’s earlier works, in regards to the nature of the induction coding area.
The process of flagging means the literature review procedure, under a grounded theory creates a path to get closer to the theoretical sources, bringing conceptual links to the explanatory literature. This is maintained till the literature sources are saturated. Meaning, no extra knowledge to the theoretical conceptual research is added; this indicates that the research is moving to the sorting code level (see figure 1).
FIGURE 1. ORTHODOX GROUNDED APPROACH
This leads to the start of the action research, initiating the coding process, as the literature is analysed through an open or closed coding process, which takes a line-by-line (detailed) analysis, flagging and coding the essential theoretical detailed essentials for the research. This linked with an over-lapping cause effect of understanding the translation from the saturated literature to coding, identifies the provisional explanatory theory, the theoretical proposition of the research. Through comparative categorising, identifying high occurring samples. This high-low frequency of coding is the essence of moving forward through the grounded approach.
5
The process continues till the coding process is saturated as no additional comparative categories are identified (a problem that is simplified in the cyclical approach, discussed later). The benefits of the coding process in grounded theory, allows for a wider literature focus, this means that grounded theory suits a qualitative framework that is essentially a characteristic of survey’s, experimental and case studies, which can be combined and integrated into the grounded theory, cf. Clandinin and Connelly (1994); and McKinley-Wright (1995), furthermore, one can take a historical prospectus to grounded theory, cf. Szabo and Strang (1997); cf. Corbin (1998) for the introspective prospectus, and cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), for a numerical analysis.
Once the coding is categorised the research could progress through an identification process to elaborate upon the grounded theory phenomenon, leading to an explanatory approach. This is called the axial coding phase (see figure 1); this is illustrated as the latter third phase, after the pre-axial and coding.
The axial phase builds relationships between the hypothesised theory and the grounding of literature, achieved through dynamic system thinking through a cause effect to create interrelationships to form the theory. This dynamic system thinking leads to the final phase of the grounded theory, this final phase is the theory development, creating a core category, cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967). This core category integrates all the phases to offer the explanation of the phenomenon grounded theory, for the ground-up ideology is perfectly lined from beginning to end, however, this simplicity attracts researchers to a complex approach in essence.
IMPACT OF AN INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM ON GROUNDED THEORY
The misconception in international business is the problems of new research, as researchers enter research ignorant of the theory construction; or either the literature relating to the phenomenon that is trying to focus research upon believing the theory will emerge from similar data, cf. Goulding (2002). The main problems associated with the methodology appear to stem largely from its misuse and abuse. This construes the problems associated with new research in international business, to stem from largely the misuse and exploitation of grounded theory, as many new researchers, not just PhD work, but also post-doctoral (including general academic and professional), private and public research are categorised as following grounded theory, however do not, follow the principles layed out in figure 1. This has been argued to be more the case in some research, rather than others. However, this is not true, cf. Mullins and Roessier (1998), Parry (1998) and numerous new research over the last decades, have consequently been organised with a hard belief that grounded theory was the best policy, meaning its not just a few. There is a profound amount of ignorance and miss matching of research methods, cf. Baker, et al. (1992) and Locke (1996). This has increasingly created an abundance of research violating the principles of grounded theory, across disciplines. However, it has become increasingly of concern in international business. Mainly, due to the diversity of the discipline, for the diversity of the inter-national business platform, ranges from the inter-national to the global dimensions. To understand the complexity of international business research, one needs to understand the dimensions of international business. The four segment dimensions of international business are:
�� Inter-national - activities that involve imports and exports and cross-border trade activities.
�� Multi-national - activities of Multi-National Companies (MNC) taking the production of activities to foreign countries for market access and economies of scale, production and marketing in multiple foreign locations.
6
�� Trans-national - involves activities when a corporation builds their operations around globally integrated supplier networks. The production of components is established in foreign markets to take advantage of specialisation economies of scale. The components are then transfers through the network to an assembly point for final production and then, they use the network to distribute the end product to a global audience, global marketing.
�� Global - involves activities on a global scale, interaction of a number of operating segments.
The problem is with the understanding of these differences, as they vary the degree of action research in each sub-international platform (see figure 2), illustrated as the per-action research, which identifies the literature and the capacity for saturation of the knowledge base in each sub platform. Each field has a varying degree of action research, which is important when considering the aspect of research in the international business arena. For instance the global dimension will have a greater complex system thinking strategy for action research than the inter-national demission. The action research will vary in complexity creating a soft or hard concept research coding bases in grounded theory principles. Therefore, the sub-categories of international business research do need to be established at the start of international business research to have an understanding of the action research volume.
FIGURE 2. SUB-INTERNATIONAL GROUNDED APPROACH
The use of partial grounded theory along other approaches can be clearly an approach, cf. Skodal-Wilson and Ambler-Hutchinson (1996), especially for the international business discipline. However, this needs to be clearly stated and needs the cyclical grounded approach to have an appropriate and practicable position in the international business research.
THE CYCLICAL GROUNDED APPROACH
The cyclical approach has the capacity to blend the problems and draw solutions upon factors that act as deterrents to using appropriate grounded theory characteristics. As 7
the factors that lead to the troubled problems of the orthodox approach, are the new research techniques used inappropriately with combined research methods, particularly in the case of grounded theory and intentional business. The problems are recognised in the international business field, with vast new research believing that their research will lead to some groundbreaking theory. However, the problem of this is that obviously not all-new search will lead to outstanding theory observations. This is usually due to the intensity and interpretation of data that can take a long time to saturate, the consequence is that at the beginning of the research it may seem grounded theory is the most appropriate form of research method, however not so the case as time evolves.
The cyclical grounded theory approach is a management based cognitive thinking strategy. That revolves around the cyclical contextuality, connecting the framework that can identify the interdisciplinary research of international business, this is derived into a cyclical cognitive control platform, interlinking the different scholarly views, able to focus on the categorising of literature and transforms the international business environment research to re-codify the grounded theory to take a dynamic cyclical management framework, capable of flagging new literature that is possible to speed up the process and provide direction and discretion in new research, identifying the true research method approach.
Creating a cyclical approach at each phase, tangent from the grounded theory is a key characteristic of an integrated international business domain. This necessitated the use of an algorithmic cyclical grounded approach that is developed from a combination of action research, essential to understand the algorithmic cycle.
The basis of overcoming the orthodox grounded theory criticism, discussed throughout this paper came from the action research interaction with grounded theory. As was discussed, what lacked with the orthodox grounded approach in new business research, was the dominance of the real theoretical grounded research and the identification of a final subjective theory, strong enough to hold under either the soft or hard concept and not buckle with obstacles that draw upon further integrated action research. This can be overcome with systematic/dynamic cognitive thinking and cause effect, as action research offers a connection of constant updating and implementing new literature in the sub-international business dimensions. Action research offers a practical and theoretical link to the pre-axial coding and literature gathering, (see figure 3); the action research increases the means of generating and proving scientific theory. This is constructed from parallel action research that can update the orthodox grounded theory as the basis of the grounded theory is expanded, by dynamic expansion, through system thinking at a comparative level.
FIGURE 3. GROUNDED ACTION RESEARCH
8
Action research is advocated as a dual approach, cf. Lau (1997), Hult and Lennong (1987); however, by linking it with grounded theory, action research provides the missing component for a basic cyclical approach. This is illustrated through simultaneous practical problem solving as the literature and the scientific knowledge is expanded. Under this situation of figure 3, the action research is performed collaboratively to draw data feedback in a cyclical process, aimed at increasing the understanding of the research. The inclusive action-research brings more initial starting knowledge, lowering the chances of failure.
Expanding the inclusive, action research to a quadratic algorithmic cyclical level is what the cyclical grounded theory is adapted to do. Therefore, expanding the action research into the grounded phase platforms, the knowledge and literature is expanded at each grounded technicality phase level, this provides a continuous expansion, providing a rotating analysis to the complex of pre-phase coding, coding and post-coding, phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 respectively, in the context of the international business research methodology studies. Which overcomes the criticisms with the orthodox grounded theory.
This combines the orthodox grounded theory with a cyclical, action research management approach to have cyclical knowledge flagging and constant updating, with cyclical action research gathering at all three phases of the orthodox grounded approach. This is illustrated here, see figure 4, the cyclical approaches adheres to improve the criticism of the orthodox Glaser and Strauss ideology, expanding and providing an understanding of the concept in terms of an international business approach, see figure 5.
FIGURE 4. CYCLICAL ACTION RESEARCH GROUNDED APPROACH
The cyclical grounded theory approach incorporates the key principles of the traditional Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory, however, taking it to the next evolution of interaction with the environment. Which depends on the dimension of research being undertaken. The key improvements are the integration of constant environmental changes in an algorithmic stance, to provide an improved action research capacity of constant evaluation, of the researched domain and the literature and the reformulation of the coding process, to handle the introduction of new knowledge and literature continuously throughout the research. This can provide a more stable research stance of adopting the correct methodology and further improve the research theory. As illustrated in figure 4, the action research becomes a continuous dominant factor in the grounded theory, providing continuous knowledge in the research area, which is essential in a fast moving research area like international business. For business, is not just influenced by the changing environments, but the
9
complexity of a quad dimension of research capable disciplines (see figure 5) of international translation exposure.
The apparatus of the quad international sub-platform dimensions, are introduced (see figure 5) through the cyclical action research, in order to provide greater updated infrastructure to the large global domains, that were previously not of little concern within the national infrastructure of traditional research work in business.
FIGURE 5. INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM CYCLICAL GROUNDED
As figure 4 and figure 5, illustrates the phases of reconnaissance and monitoring, are improved through the cyclical improvements at each phase and coding sample level, which used for data collection, coding and analysis. These phases of coding provides a dynamic move from restructural coding importance, slowly saturating the relevance of literature and the research level, in contrast to the orthodox tradition of saturation occurring at the end of the pre-coding. However, under the cyclical process saturation occurs at the end of all three phases, providing greater in-depth grounded theory analysis.
CYCLICAL AND BLENDED LEARNING MANAGEMENT
However, the cyclical process is able to work on this base by it self, without requiring the importance of linking the processes of the three phases of coding that is lacking from both the orthodox grounded theory and the developed cyclical ideology. How, this can be resolved is through the process of blended learning techniques that is lacking within the domain of research structuring and linking of research methodology characteristics and key principles. This is especially important in the area of international business, with the great diversity of a simple sub-platform dimension of business practices, cultural clashes and ethical practices; cf. Annells (1996); Grisar-Kassé (2004).
Even though blended learning is in its infancy the applicability of blended learning, to blend the international business reasoning between the phases, identified of grounding an algorithmic cyclical thinking, closes the vital importance gap that can occur in between the translation and exchange exposure that occurs between coding phases, both decoding to the next phase and encoding back to update the research through action research cycling.
Most of the research in blended learning is in the effective means of combing modes of delivery and learning styles; cf. Orey (2002), Collins and Moonen (2001). In the domain of grounded theory the applicability is in the blending of action research and the key principles of grounded theory (see figure 6). Here it is illustrated that some overlaps between the pure action research sessions of continuous action, applied updated knowledge transfers incorporate the process to have an effective grounded
10
theory, harder then the soft-phase pure grounded theory. The blended learning overlaps do provide a stance of linking the implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and amendment plans that are constantly active with the action research domain of this theory as the phase’s lapse and the volume of literature increases.
FIGURE 6. BLENDED LEARNING CONCEPTUAL LINK
Understanding the importance of the need for a comfortable interconnection between action researches at the basic level represents a successful understanding of the research at hand. This can be implemented into the constructed cyclical grounded approach to provide the miss-amended synergies (this can also be implemented into the orthodox grounded approach) that will comfortably implement, the action research. Construing a cyclical algorithm at each phase and translating them to the next phase, grounded through the principles and to the next phase of coding, where the action research continues to the final post-coding phase, in a clear and simple-cut process without disintegration or loss of knowledge as the blended learning seals this loss (see figure 7). Creating a blended buffer zone to safeguard any disintegration of important dynamic action research that is being constantly generated. Which creates a practical cyclical approach for international business, when the quad platforms of international exposure are implemented.
FIGURE 7. BLENDED CYCLICAL GROUNDED APPROACH
CONCLUSION
The qualitative techniques used in international business planning can be linked with global management thinking strategies. Therefore, the essence of global management 11
thinking strategies can highlight, the cyclical grounded development of soft and hard transition frameworks in international business management methodologies. The capabilities of the cyclical grounded approach it not limited to qualitative analysis, which the orthodox Grounded Theory approach is traditionally used to investigate. The cyclical approach runs in cycles to run management thinking techniques in a rotation pattern to analyse qualitative and quantitative literature sieving far more theory and eventually identifying the appropriate direction of analysis. This is a reformulation of the orthodox grounded approach that can outline future integration patterns and works well in identifying the hard and soft techniques of research, for the cyclical element is furthermore linked to control, which will complete the full cycle of an international research methodology approach. All in all sealed with a blended learning process to move between phases of the grounded research theory being undertaken. Identifying a widened ability of a cyclical approach over the orthodox theory.
REFERENCES
Annells, M. 1996. Grounded theory method: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of enquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 379-393.
Baker, C., West, J. & Stern, P. 1992. Method slurring; the grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355-1360.
Brown, A. 1994. Politics, symbolic action and myth making in pursuit of legitimacy. Organization Studies, 15 (6), 861-878.
Brown, A. 1995. Managing understandings: politics, symbolism, niche marketing and the quest for legitimacy in IT implementation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 951-969.
Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. 1994. Personal experience methods. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research: 413-427. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Collis, B. & J. Moonen 2001. Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London, Kogan Page Ltd.
Corbin, J. 1998. Alternative interpretations: valid or not? Theory and Psychology, 8(1), 121-128.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence v. Forcing. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Goulding, C. 1998. Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50-57.
Goulding, C. 1999. Heritage, nostalgia, and the 'grey' consumer. The Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(6/7/8), 177-199.
Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded Theory; A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London: Sage.
Grisar-Kassé, K. 2004. The Role of Negative Personal Experiences in Cross-Cultural Case Study Research: Failure or Opportunity? In Marschan-Piekkari, R. &
12
Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 144-161. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hult, M. & S. Lennung 1987. Towards the Definition of Action Research: A Note and Bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2): 241-250.
Hunt, J.G. & Ropo, A. 1995. Multi-level leadership: grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 379-412.
Kerlinger, F. 1973. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Lau, F. 1997. A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies. Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information systems and qualitative research: 31-68. London: Chapman & Hall.
Locke, K. 1996. Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5 (3), 239-245.
Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. 2004a. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. 2004b. Qualitative Research Methods in International Business: The State of the Art. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 5-24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, C.A., Penttinen, H. & Tahvanainen, M. 2004. Interviewing in the Multinational Corporation: Challenges of the Organisational Context. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 244-263. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McKinley-Wright, M. 1995. I never did any fieldwork, but I milked an awful lot of cows! Using rural women's experience to reconceptualise models of work. Gender and Society, 9 (2), 216-235.
Morse, J.M. 1994. Emerging from the data: the cognitive process of analysis in qualitative enquiry. In Morse, J.M. (Eds.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods: 23-43 Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mullins, J. & Roessier, R. 1998. Improving employment outcomes; perspectives of experienced counsellors regarding the importance of counselling tasks. Journal of Rehabilitation, 64(2), 12-18.
Noorderhaven, N.G. 2004. Hermeneutic Methodology and International Business Research. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 84-104. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Orey, M. 2002. One Year of Online Blended Learning: Lessons Learned. Paper presented as the Annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association: 314–318. Florida: Sarasota.
Parry, K.W. 1998. Grounded theory and social process: a new direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1), 85-105.
Peterson, R.B. 2004. Empirical Research in International Management: A Critique and Future Agenda. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 25-55. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Skodal-Wilson, H. & Ambler-Hutchinson, S. 1996. Methodological mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing Research, 45(2), 122-124.
13
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research: 273-285 Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Szabo, V. & Strang, V.R. 1997. Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2), 66-74.
Turner, B. 1981. Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising the cognitive process associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15(3), 225-247.
Westwood, R. 2004. Towards a Postcolonial Research Paradigm in International and Comparative Management. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. & Welch, C.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business: 56-83. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
14
