1 / 30

Nancy Pouloudi

Σύνθεση - Putting it together Δομή ποιοτικής/ ερμηνευτικής έρευνας σε πληροφοριακά συστήματα και κοινωνικές επιστήμες Structuring a qualitative PhD & getting publications out of it…. Nancy Pouloudi. Η παρουσίαση. Starting small: papers Συνήθη προβλήματα Προτεινόμενη δομή

quon-mclaughlin
Download Presentation

Nancy Pouloudi

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Σύνθεση - Putting it togetherΔομή ποιοτικής/ ερμηνευτικής έρευνας σε πληροφοριακά συστήματα και κοινωνικές επιστήμες Structuring a qualitative PhD &getting publications out of it… Nancy Pouloudi

  2. Η παρουσίαση • Starting small: papers • Συνήθη προβλήματα • Προτεινόμενη δομή • Αντιστοίχιση με τη δομή ενός διδακτορικού • Παραδείγματα, ‘από τη ζωή βγαλμένα’… • Για να γράφουμε με άποψη & στυλ…

  3. Πώς εκνευρίζουμε τους κριτές 1. Ασαφής διατύπωση ερευνητικού προβλήματος (“μάντεψε το ερευνητικό πρόβλημα”) 2. Λάθος (υπερ-αισιόδοξη?) διατύπωση προβλήματος (“αυτό το paper θα αλλάξει το σκηνικό της έρευνας”) 3. Ελλειπές θεωρητικό υπόβαθρο (“είμαι ένας φτωχός και μόνος γελαδάρης – δεν έχω πού να στηριχθώ”) 4. Προβληματική μεθοδολογία (“σιγά μην αποκαλύψω τις πηγές μου!”“μα είναι προφανές τι έκανα & γιατί”) 5. Προβλήματα στην εμπειρική δουλειά (“εδώ τα καλά δεδομένα!”) 6. Δεν υπάρχουν συμπεράσματα (“αν δεν μπορείς να καταλάβεις τι έκανα και γιατί είναι σημαντικό δεν σου αξίζει να είσαι κριτής”) 7. Τα συμπεράσματα είναι άσχετα (βλ.1, 4, 5, 6…)

  4. Δομή ενός paper(με πλάγια οι ειδοποιείς διαφορές της ερμηνευτικής έρευνας) 1. Introduction • research problem and objectives • research context (scope & audience) 2. Theoretical background (literature review) 3. Methodology • what and why • how and why 4. Empirical data & analysis 5. Conclusions • summary • contribution (theory? practice? methodology?) • limitations and further research

  5. Μεταφορά στο διδακτορικό • Defining a research problem • Identify relevant research areas • Classify relevant ‘knowledge’ • Identify gaps in the literature • Explore relevant methodologies to tackle research problem (how & why can qualitative research help) • Investigate relevant empirical material • ‘first level’ analysis: based on literature • ‘second level’ analysis: insights from the data • Theoretical/ empirical/ methodological contribution

  6. Corresponding chapter structure 1. Introduction 2. Literature review 3. Research methodology 4. Description of empirical setting 5. First analysis of empirical setting 6. Second analysis of empirical setting 7. Conclusions: overview, contribution, limitations & further research Μια απλή παρατήρηση: – εκτός από το 3 & το 7, ο τίτλος του κεφαλαίου πρέπει να σχετίζεται με το διδακτορικό!

  7. The 3 S’s Story (research problem) Structure Sentence

  8. False assumptions • Research is sequential and linear • First you ‘do’ then you ‘write up’

  9. Methodology in interpretive research • Philosophical assumptions (phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory…) • Methodology (action research, grounded theory) • Methods (case study) • Data Collection (what data? how are they collected? who was approached? why?) • Data Analysis (common ‘themes’, differences in interpretation) • Conclusions from the analysis

  10. Let’s become specific

  11. Nancy’s thesis Stakeholder analysis for interorganisational information systems in healthcare • Interorganisational systems research issues • The stakeholder concept in the strategic management and information systems literature • Research methodology • An interpretive approach to identify and analyse interorganisational systems stakeholders • Describing the drug use management domain from a stakeholder perspective • Instrumental and normative aspects of interorganisational information exchange in healthcare • Conclusions and further research directions

  12. Introduction Ch. 1: Interorganisational systems research issues 1.1 Drivers for adopting interorganisational systems 1.2 Interorganisational systems as political systems 1.3 Reviewing the interorganisational systems research agenda 1.3.1 Shifting concerns in information systems research and practice 1.3.2 Shifting concerns in interorganisational systems research and practice 1.3.3 Interorganisational systems stakeholders 1.4 The British healthcare environment 1.5 Overview of the research contributions 1.6 Structure of the thesis

  13. Literature review Ch. 2: The stakeholder concept in the strategic management and information systems literature 2.1 Definitions: who is a stakeholder? 2.2 Stakeholder theories of management: descriptive, instrumental and normative aspects 2.2.1 Instrumental uses of the stakeholder concept 2.2.2 Normative uses of the stakeholder concept 2.3 Information systems stakeholders 2.3.1 Use of the stakeholder concept in information systems research Stakeholder analysis to assist information systems planning and strategy formulation Stakeholder analysis to assist information systems development and implementation Ethical notions of stakeholding in information systems 2.3.2 Recent developments and challenges in the study of information systems stakeholders Stakeholder analysis and soft systems methodology Stakeholder analysis and actor network theory 2.4 Summary and conclusions

  14. Conclusions Ch. 7: Conclusions and further research directions 7.1 Overview of the research 7.2 Research contributions 7.2.1 Theoretical contributions Interorganisational systems stakeholders Descriptive, instrumental and normative aspects of interpretive stakeholder analysis 7.2.2 Methodological contributions 7.2.3 Practical contributions 7.2.4 Overview of the research contributions 7.3 Limitations of the research approach 7.4 Areas for further research

  15. Some publishable stories

  16. The ‘main’ published PhD paper Pouloudi, A., & Whitley, E. A. (1997). Stakeholder Identification in Interorganizational Systems: Gaining Insights for Drug Use Management Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 6 (1), 1-14. Introduction A review of participants and stakeholders in information systems development Stakeholder identification Findings Stakeholder identification Examples of the viewpoints of the stakeholders Conclusions …This evolved from an earlier ECIS paper (1995) …11 citations

  17. Paper on empirical data (1) Pouloudi, A. (1997). Conflicting Concerns over the Privacy of Electronic Medical Records in the NHSnet. Business Ethics: A European Review, 6 (2), 94-101. Introduction Background An alternative approach to stakeholder analysis Research findings Implications for privacy and NHSnet success Conclusions …This evolved from an earlier ETHICOMP paper (1996)

  18. Paper on empirical data (2) Pouloudi, A. (1998). Stakeholder Analysis in Health Interorganizational Systems: The Case of NHSnet. In K.V. Andersen (Ed.), EDI and Data Networking in the Public Sector (pp. 83-107). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Introduction A stakeholder analysis approach for health interorganisational systems Background: why the NHSnet? Identifying the NHSnet stakeholders Discussing important issues for NHSnet use The 2nd part of the ETHICOMP (1996) paper – analysis & appendix in the PhD

  19. Paper on empirical data (3) Pouloudi, A. (1999). Information technology for collaborative advantage in health care revisited. Information & Management, 35 (6), 345-357. Introduction Research approahc NHSnet: a brief case description NHSnet and CHINs: Reviewing the lessons Discussion Conclusion Based on Ferratt, T.W., Lederer, A.L., Hall, S.R. & Krella, J.M. (1996) Swords and plowshares: information technology for collaborative advantage. Information & Management, 30 (3), 131-142

  20. Paper on empirical data (4) Whitley, E.A., & Pouloudi, A. (2001). Studying the translations of NHSnet. Journal of End User Computing 13(3), 30-40. Introduction Understanding the life of a project The sociology of translation Viewing the translations in an information systems project Four moments of translation Implications beyond the NHSnet Conclusions This was written after the PhD – following one ‘further research’ lead

  21. From empirical data to general issues (1) Introna, L., & Pouloudi, A. (1999). Privacy in the Information Age: Stakeholders, interests and values. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(1), 27-38. Introduction Privacy as the freedom from the judgment of others Stakeholders and the interests of the “other” Framework for the analysis of privacy claims and risks Privacy claims and risks in the British NHS Conclusion …This evolved from an earlier ETHICOMP paper (1998) … and helped me conclude the PhD analysis

  22. From empirical data to general issues (2) Pouloudi, A & Whitley, E.A. (2000). Representing human and non-human stakeholders: on speaking with authority. In Baskerville, R., Stage, J. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds.) Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology (pp. 340-354). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Introduction Speaking with authority The NHSnet Patients Encryption algorithm Summary and discussion This was written after the PhD – following one ‘further research’ lead

  23. On style…

  24. The ‘macro’ structure of aqualitative PhD • You decide the question (use the literature as ‘crutches’) and also supply the answer • Ensure that the two fit together! • (and are reflected in the title!) • Writing is about managing the readers’ expectations • Macro-structure (80,000 words): • introductory or lead-in (the boring bits?) • The Core (the original bits) (40-50,000 words) • afterword (will be taken seriously if core has been worthwhile)

  25. The ‘micro’ structure of the PhD • Chapter: about 10,000 words, 4 or 5 sections • Managing expectations • headings/sub-headings/sections • verbal signposts and promises • literature review scopes readers’ views of your own work (school of thought) • criticisms bid up the standards you have to meet

  26. 2. CHAPTER TITLE Opening paragraphs (1-4 paragraphs - first: chapter aim; last: chapter layout) 2.1 Subheading 1-2 paragraphs signposting the sub-sections 2.1.1 Subsection heading arguments… 2.1.2 Subsection heading arguments… Informal subheading arguments… 2.5 Conclusions (start with summary, finish with introduction to next chapter, AND HAVE SOMETHING IN-BETWEEN)

  27. Replanning the first draft • Write out headings and subheadings as in text • One line summary for each paragraph (core argument) • Check for • simple (not complex) • big blocks of argument • logical sequence • developmental, cumulative (not recursive) • Think of alternative ways of structuring and try them out (using the summaries) • You’ll throw away your 1st draft, but you need it to get to the 2nd!! • Final check • headings: informative, at the right level • paragraphs: enough or too many in the subsection • paragraphs and sections are linked

  28. Seek feedback! • the obvious bits: spell check the document, READ it before you ask others to read it • the difficult part: be critical of your work (why am I saying this? Can I back it up? Do I back it up?) • paragraph rework and replanning • ask colleagues and staff for comments • filter criticism: why is the particular person telling me this (what can I gain from their perspective?)

  29. Writing style - DON’Ts • The Agatha Christie syndrome: never reveal where you’re heading • English or Greek?: “on the other side there exists...” • Don’t make big claims (unless you can support them with references or empirical evidence); be critical (doesn’t mean dismissive!) • Avoid excessive use of first person (confidence vs. arrogance)

  30. Writing style - DO’s • Signpost your sections/chapters: tell the reader how they relate • Write simple, clear, SHORT sentences • Give all details on the references and be consistent (e.g., APA style) • It helps to keep a complete list of your references together (ENDNOTE helps) • Use a consistent style throughout (for headings, fonts, headers, references…)

More Related