BUSI 815 Week 7 DB Forum 5 Example

Discussion Board Forum 5: Thread and Two Replies

BUSI 815 Qualitative Research Methods, Discussion Board Forum 5 (thread and two replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt, the study and the classmates are composites standing in for the course's own; the books and the published research are real; the week, points and readings follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 815, which keeps each forum's detailed instructions inside the course.

My dissertation design is a multiple-case study of how heirs to three family factories win acceptance as leaders after founders who left in different ways: retirement, a slow phase-out and illness. The design states propositions in advance, drawn from the succession literature: for example, that successors gain legitimacy with employees more slowly when the founder remains in the building. Propositions focus a case study, but they also create a risk. A researcher who expects a pattern may notice evidence that fits it and overlook evidence that does not. My validation plan is built around that risk.

Creswell and Poth (2018) organize validation strategies by lens: the researcher's, the participants' and the readers'. From the researcher's lens, I will use triangulation, corroborating evidence across interviews, documents, archival records and observation. If an employee says the successor was accepted quickly, I will look for evidence in meeting minutes or in whom employees copy on emails. I will also use negative case analysis, which Creswell and Poth describe as refining working hypotheses as the inquiry advances in light of disconfirming evidence. In practice, that means writing a memo for every piece of evidence that contradicts a proposition and revising the explanation rather than setting it aside. Finally, I will clarify researcher bias. I grew up in a family firm and watched a difficult succession, and I will state that history in the dissertation so readers can judge its influence.

From the participants' lens, I will use member checking, sharing case summaries with key informants in each firm and asking whether they recognize the account. From the readers' lens, I will provide rich, thick description, so readers can judge whether findings transfer to firms they know, and peer review by a faculty member outside my committee who will examine whether my interpretations follow from the evidence.

Of these strategies, negative case analysis matters most for my design. A case study with propositions is only as honest as the researcher's willingness to report the case that breaks them. If the firm whose founder lingered turns out to have the fastest acceptance, that finding is more valuable than another confirmation, because it would show that something other than the founder's presence drives legitimacy.

Keller and Alsdorf (2012) argue in chapter 11 that the gospel gives Christians a new compass for work, an ethical orientation grounded not in self-interest or mere rule-keeping but in the character of God and concern for others. They suggest that ethical failures at work often come from small accommodations to pressure rather than dramatic choices. Research has its own pressures: committees that liked the propositions, a researcher's investment in being right, and participants who might be embarrassed by findings. A compass shaped by the gospel treats truthfulness as owed both to God and to the people who will rely on the findings, family firms planning their own transitions. For me, that means committing in advance to report disconfirming cases prominently, not in a footnote, and to protect participants' dignity even when the findings are unflattering to them.

Reply to Deborah

Deborah, your plan to rely mainly on member checking for your phenomenological study of nurse managers' experience of mandatory overtime is well suited to your aim of describing their lived experience in their terms. Creswell and Poth (2018) treat member checking as a participant-lens strategy that lets participants judge the accuracy and credibility of the account. I wonder what member checking can catch, though. Participants can correct a misunderstanding of what they said, but they may also revise an account to present themselves or their hospital more favorably once they see it in writing. Managers who described exhaustion candidly in an interview might soften that description when reviewing it, especially if they worry about being identified. Would you consider pairing member checking with a researcher-lens strategy, such as keeping the original transcript as the primary data and treating any revision as additional data to analyze, rather than as a replacement? That would let you honor participants' review while preserving what they first said.

Reply to Samuel

Samuel, your grounded theory study of how small nonprofits decide to merge has a strong audit trail plan: memos dated throughout, a codebook with every revision recorded and a log of theoretical sampling decisions. Creswell and Poth (2018) list external audits among the readers'-lens strategies, and your trail would make one possible. My concern is that an audit trail shows how you reached your conclusions but not whether those conclusions fit the data. An auditor could confirm that your procedures were consistent and still miss an interpretation shaped by your own experience as a board member who led a merger. Could you add a peer reviewer who reads a sample of transcripts and your emerging categories before you reach theoretical saturation, rather than after the study is finished? Keller and Alsdorf (2012) remind us that integrity often means inviting scrutiny before it is required, and an early reviewer would test your theory while its categories can still be reshaped.

References

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2012). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God's work. Dutton.