2.1 Research Approach
The research began by a literature review, and the empirical work was conducted after the analysis and description of the cases had been completed. These findings and, particularly the problems identified, led to the development of a theory. Guided by the insights from the fieldwork, concepts that arose and were developed in other areas, including private sector organizations or philosophies, were combined to form a normative theoretic model of knowledge entrepreneurship in universities.

In its core, research uses two qualitative methods. On one hand, data, predominantly through semi-structured interviews, is gathered and analyzed to investigate four case studies of universities. On the other hand, the researcher has acted as knowledge entrepreneur and reflected upon the research phenomenon by deploying the action research method. Both approaches imply an emphasis on processes and meanings rather than an examination or measurement in terms of quantity, amount, intensity or frequenc (Van Maanen, 1983).

These two methodologies are then combined to answer the research questions using a combined empirical analytic approach, following as a guide the practices of grounded theory as developed and tested by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Primary and secondary insights have been gained by pursuing scientific knowledge opportunities in the course of the action research track. This procedure is in line with Strauss and Corbin, who stress that the methods and processes described do not need to be applied rigidly (ibid., p. 59) but rather serve as an overall frame for engaging in scientific investigation. Of course, most of the arguments presented depend on the definition of science and subsequently scientific guidelines. Kvale’s definition of science is adopted: science is the methodological production of new, systematic knowledge. (Kvale, 1996, p. 60). Thereby “knowledge and practice become studied as local knowledge and practice” in contrast to other approaches that start with theory and then test them empirically (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 15).

Case studies, in particular, are often referred to as being on the same level as grounded theory (Punch, 1998, p. 149). Locke suggests that the grounded theory style of handling and interpreting data may well be incorporated with a case study approach (Locke, 2000, p. 19). Also, action research and grounded theory have successfully been used together (Teram E, Schachter C.L, & C.A., 2005). The combination of case studies, action research and grounded theory is recently gaining popularity, especially in the area of Information Systems research, and are assessed to be complementary (Baskerville & Pries-Hejeb, 1999; Myers, 1997). The combined approach has been chosen for two reasons. Firstly, the subject of the research is not well established and, thus, needs open-minded exploration and subsequent theoretic reflection and secondly because grounded theory is very suitable for practicing knowledge entrepreneurship through action research, as it allows for the realization of relevant knowledge opportunities along the way.

The findings of the research will be presented in a narrative, situated in the defined conceptual environment (using concepts, terminology and relations) prepared using the theoretic background and approach. According to Stacey (2001: 124), narratives, rather than facts “make experience meaningful and are the privileged mode of sense-making.” This study attempts to draw on sense-making in order to better understand the phenomena.

To reach greatest credibility through reflexive methodological accounting, the theoretical orientations and preconceptions of the researcher (see Annex A) are also made evident (Seale 2000:163). The traditional role of the author is accepted and textual strategy is used to persuade the reader of the writer’s authority to speak. Thereby, it is most important to prove credibility through the ability to demonstrate a holistic understanding of bodies of knowledge, as well as the development of an original and innovative contribution to the scientific discourse (as opposed to the craftsmanship of scientific conduct and writing, which is typically assumed to be minimal criteria for passing the certification (Seale 2000:181), or the entrepreneurial aptitude and management of the research initiatives, which solely represent the authenticity and embracement of the research topic.
Filter     Order     Display # 
Item Title
2.1.3. Personal and Impersonal Narrator
2.1.2. Demarcation
2.1.1. Development of the Research Questions
 
<< Start < Prev 1 Next > End >>
Results 1 - 3 of 3
[ Back ]