To answer complex research questions, we need to consider how to use research methods effectively, how knowledge is created and relates to building theory, but also how all is relative to the eye of the beholder.
Knowledge was defined as “something previously unknown”; a helpful way to examine the purpose and core of research in a more profound way. We've also discussed enlightenment, where human beings try to make sense of the world by demystification and finding regularities that exist without human intervention, which in a sense is what research is about. Paradoxically, human intervention is always part of research. We unveil and interpret the world through goggles in order to make sense of it. No matter how scientific, mathematical, logic or rational the research nature; there are always those goggles to consider (goggles instead of glasses because they let less objective airflow pass).
Human beings fundamentally organize experiences to make sense of the world. It can make or break society, depending on how it is used as well as how you interpret information as disadvantages or advantages. In Sweden, it is a common phenomena to see households with labeling (I've even seen a sign above a bed with the words “bed”). Historically, the Swedish institute for standardization founded 1922 helped to, for example, create kitchens with ergonomic measurements before ISO was created. Prior to that, Carl von Linné started off by organizing plants and animals, but also proceeded with human beings. Later, Hitler took the concept of race biology to a whole different level. One could argue that this caused damage to society, but nevertheless, some good also came out of the second world war. Again, it's all about interpretation.
Logically, building theory through research will differ depending on who interprets what theory is (or is not). In the same way “42” is the answer to readers of “The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy” by D. Adams, it isn't to others. Nevertheless, theory in research should mostly answer the question “why?”. All research doesn't answer this question, hence isn't theory building. However, that doesn't mean that it is not valuable. Some research is designed to simply strengthen existing theory.
“Knowledge creation” is a concept discussing how research methods in different ways contribute with something previously unknown. Throughout the course, we've learned that knowledge creation works in different ways depending on the nature of the research.
Quantitative research aims to reproduce a result which can, in case of success, confirm a hypothesis. In case of failure to reproduce the predicted result, the hypothesis is disproven. This type of research is primarily based on pre-existing information as a basis, but can strengthen prior research or weaken it. Data collection measures, sometimes high volumes, to enable statistical analysis. The analysis uses an argument to generate results; data without analysis isn't creating knowledge nor building theory.
Qualitative research aims to discover complexities and “in-between-the-lines” phenomena. By e.g. conducting interviews, diaries and observe behaviors, unexpected discoveries can be made. This method can be used to understand new knowledge better.
Whereas the priorly mentioned methods are built on testing a hypothesis, and end result focused; case studies can combine quantitative and qualitative methods; a metamethod. They also have a very specific target group and aim to “mirror reality”.
Case studies have in common with research through design (a.k.a. Design research) that they are mainly focused on the process rather than the result. It is more about the journey than the destination. Because of this, it initially uses research questions for focus rather than hypotheses. Design research also changes and adjusts its process to a greater extent than other methods. The exploratory process becomes a crucial part of the findings.
Selecting a suitable method, following certain steps to create knowledge, build theory and/or test a hypothesis is all important for successful research - but then what? Producing new findings is generally a goal of research, but at a guess, spreading those findings is equally important. Why produce knowledge unless you share it? (I admit being inspired by the book “We think” by C. Leadbeater.) A problem identified in the today commonly used journal publishing method is the peer review process.
Technology changes more rapidly, where politics and laws struggle to keep up with the pace. Peer review similarly becomes the weak link for research publishing. The time span for a peer review process could be half a year or even a year. In some countries, getting a court verdict is faster. The balance between validity and timing is broken, perhaps outdated. Thinking from a marketing perspective, consider the needs of your audience. The time frame the audience is willing to wait to read research changed with the developments of technology. Validity cannot be quantified until you reach the audience to begin with. A new solution could be to view research performed in real time; with complete transparency and peer review in real time. Services such as Google docs makes this possible. A similar publishing platform for a journal could in theory enable this process.
However, who is the audience? People within institutions have their own set of rules for what valid research consists of. It is not coincidental that we were provided guidelines to find research with certain impact factor ratings. Ultimately, it isn't enough for peer review to change; the target group needs to consider why these requirements are in place and whether or not they should be reviewed and/or changed regularly. With KTH as example, a technical university, certain courses (Industrial management e.g.) require textbooks despite existing technology of e-books and publishing articles online. This makes me question whether or not other aspects of the university is keeping up with technological developments; such as mentioned research criteria.
Finding research and validating it within a reasonable time span is also done with goggles. Used by an individual researcher or a human representing an institution, there is subjective input to be considered. No knowledge is objective; decisions within organizations are also made by people. Postponing judgement and identifying one's own bias is a way to reduce these issues, but despite efforts it is a fact (or not) that some subjectivity remains.
