DDP week2 14 discussion forum responses

DDP week2 14 discussion forum responses

Week2 discussion
Sheila Keegan’s article includes a reflection on the twin issues of emotion and emergence, offered as an academically proscribed fourth dimension to be added to the traditional conceptualisation of what research is all about. The Weekly Notes section then tries to balance this perspective through the introduction of some arguably pragmatic but almost certainly simplistic ideas that have originated from a perspective that was dominated by practitioner thinking.
With these thoughts in mind, post a 750- to 1,000-word reflection that considers the value of Keegan’s emotion and emergence concepts to practitioner-managers charged with investigating a specific workplace issue through the use of formal research techniques. Post your responses to the Discussion Board by Saturday.
In your follow-on responses, reply to a selection of colleagues. Your follow-on responses should provide evidence that you have critically reflected on the material by questioning assumptions, revealing new personal insights, and probing and/or posing questions for further investigation.
Remember to cite and reference examples from the readings and journal articles for this week. Please submit your initial response through the Turnitin submission link below in addition to posting it to the Discussion Board thread.

See below for the students’s responses for this week discussion and make the responses to each student  using ref.

Student 1 hmni
Week 2 Discussion Question

Week 2, Discussion
Introduction
In this paper, I present a critical reflection that evaluates the value of Keegan’s emotional and emergence conceptions. This value is tailored towards practitioner-managers obligated probing a specific workplace matter using formal research methods. Clearly, Keegan (2009) has made a milestone development in her article when reflecting the emergence and emotional issues aimed to be used in conceptualizing what research is all about. Her simplistic and pragmatic ideas elaborately reveal that workplace-based research has advanced to a level it meets both client and consumer needs.
Initially, I had not realized the current dynamics played out between the commercial world and the role played by research in solving workplace-issues. After perusing through the article by Keegan (2009), I have finally attained some level of understanding between the two practitioner- and academic-based concepts. Her findings explicitly give a clear reality that research plays in the commercial world today, having shifted to a social constructionist perspective from a classic scientific paradigm. Keegan’s argument on the importance of research inquiry is even better clarified using the emergence and emotional concepts.
Specifically, I have come to understand that research inquiry is an emergent process, that is, a repetitive exercise that is not controlled by constraints and rules. If this is the case, a person may wonder; what is the meaning of emergence as it relates to research inquiry and what is its importance is resolving workplace-based issues? Nancarrow et al. (2001) states that research is a spontaneous development and flow where a change in attitude and opinions can occur. Assessing this statement, Keegan (2009) clarifies that this change in varied opinion does not occur by chance. Instead, the changes are controlled by checks and balances that function in a specific context and relationship. As such, a researcher must make sense of new approaches to practice by delving beneath the obvious and the ordinary, to initiate new ideas, connections, and emotional responses.
Making sense of new ways of practice
I have come to understand that in emergent inquiry, research is perceived as an approach that deals with the situation at hand. That is, its ability to immediately generate new ideas, thoughts, and emotions and how these three are shaped, developed, and shape researchers and practitioner-managers. The clear point in this case is that research is holistic and temporal (Keegan, 2009), as opposed to being reductionist. However, this research relies on open-minded and eclectic perspectives that enables researchers to generate new ideas aimed at solving workplace issues.
Traditionally, the practitioner managers have been responsible for defining what needs to be researched. Commonly, the definition of the research problem is constructed to suit the practitioners’ perspective before they share it to the researcher. Keegan notes that such a move may be right if the problem is clear, but tricky when the problem is complex. I have understood the reason behind this problem to be associated with the presence of multi-stakeholders that will always have divergent opinions and agendas. In view of this hidden agenda, how can researchers and practitioners breach the divide? An elaborate answer from Keegan proposes the use of process consultancy.
I think the process of consultancy is best applicable during organizational program changes. This is because, as Keegan elaborates, it facilitates team building and corporate synergy between the researcher and the practitioner-managers. A researcher is well positioned to address the emergence situations and find emotional factors and thoughts that explores the managers’ problems. This approach enables formal research methods to be used and the existing problems to be defined. Often, the problem is defined by practitioner-managers mandated with investigating a specific workplace issue. However, a concern that may arise with this model is that managers may lack necessary skills to undertake such an exercise. For instance, in the mirror of theory, Jenlink (2009) questions if individual experience is necessary before a person can research or even teach something? In regard to this question, scholars such as Nasir and Cooks (1999) and Bers (2001) find it necessary to have a prior experience before engaging in research. From this elaborations, I have understood that a change in the expected roles between practitioner-managers and researchers in formulating a research problem is needed, before a problem can be defined and openly acknowledged (Keegan, 2009).
Research Answer and Future Research
Once the question is researched and solved, the common rift that exists between the researcher and the practitioner-manager may worsen the implementation of the findings. For example, after the researcher submits the findings, he or she is dismissed by the manager. This approach results in the loss of a valuable researcher knowledge. If such a dismissal can be avoided, it is possible for the researcher to assist the practitioner-managers come up with the better implementation framework. When managers work with researchers in this manner, their interaction becomes a central part of emergent inquiry, besides exploiting all the benefits of the research.
At times the academia perceives practitioner research as a process that lacks creativity because it offers a rigid methodology. Keegan states such a perception leaves the notion that practitioner-managers are disconnected from the inquest, fearing to contaminate the statistics. Such a move implies that researchers are not better equipped to engage in collaborative research with practitioners to mutually co-create research value. By its nature, emergent inquiry is significant in promoting collaborative research. I perceive that this is because it can encourage participant participation and eliminates research flexibility. For example, practitioner-managers need to embrace reflection–inaction, while employing past knowledge to appraise the existing issues.
Keegan (2009) elaborates that training practice-managers and researchers in personal awareness and reflective skills is essential for the suitable execution of emergent inquiry. This is true because knowledge can only result through critical self-reflection, practical experimentation and reflection sharing, and through listening. As such, I have come to understand that individual researcher qualities, attained via formal training, experience and personal development are vital. In conclusion, there is a need to train new qualitative researchers to include both practice and qualitative thinking.

References
Bers, M. U. (2001). Identity construction environments: Developing personal and moral values through the design of a virtual city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 365–415.
Carr, W. (2006). Philosophy, Methodology and Action Research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(4), 421–435.
Jenlink, P. (2009). The memory of practice and the mirror of theory. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 74-78.
Keegan, S. (2009). Emergent inquiry: a practitioner’s reflections on the development of qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research, 12(2), 234-248.
Nancarrow, C., Spackman, N., & Barker, A. (2001). Informed Eclecticism: a research paradigm for the twenty first century. International Journal of Market Research, 43(1), 3-28.

Student 2 Fadi
Look forward to your comments.
regards
Fadi
Keegan (2009) argued “emergent inquiry” as a method for quantitative research. “emergent inquiry” is underpinned by the concepts of emotions and emergence.
There are various concepts derived from both emotions and emergence that may bring value to the practitioner-managers quest to solve workplace issues and create knowledge. Such concepts are highlighted in the discussion below.
Concepts related to Emergence
Co-creation. In co-creation the role of the researcher, the client are overlapping. Value is jointly created by all involved in the research. What this entails that a participatory approach to creating research would produce rigorous knowledge, Medeiros and Needham (2008); Cherkoff and Moore (2007); Pakel-Dunlop (2007). ?
Complexity thinking and Iterative learning. The value rests in thinking about the relationships between things ie people, organizations, job roles, information, as opposed to think about things themselves. The implication for research is that things are in a constant state of change, and so are the relationships that binds them. Knowledge is therefore temporal since it is changing over time though an iterative learning process. From a manager practitioner perspective, the focus ought to include the relation that connects things together and how this is evolving. Such a focus will enable a better sense making. A case in point is the study of change and how changes in organization impact behaviors. Many researchers attempted to study how change comes about by looking at the sense making process Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991), Weick, K.E. (1988).  Therefore, the inquiry, the analysis and the interpretation becomes part of the process and the learning embedded within the research process and are part of the iterative learning Marquardt & Waddill (2004).
Improvisation, unlocks new ways of understanding issues. Participatory research, which is namely shifting more power to the participants Cornwall & Jewkes (1995),  promise to unlock issues impossible to unlock in conventional methods.
Researcher, client, participant role.
In the conventional approach, researcher is given a research problem to work on. The researcher does not get involved the problematisation process.  The proposition from emergent inquiry is for researcher and client discuss the problem definition. Many often, the answer to a particular research problem lies in the problem definition Keegan (2009). It therefore becomes important to include the problem definition as part the researchers role and scope to ensure the research not only stays relevant, but also to leverage the research methods most appropriate for the research, Creswell (2013). Along the same lines, the researcher being intimately involved in research process and findings, should also get involved in the practical application of the research findings Keegan (2009) to ensure the research is rightly placed.
Concepts related to Emotions
Emotionally charged knowledge. Emotionally charged knowledge is more holistic since it involves mind and body, Keegan (2009). From a practical standpoint, this means that is important for practitioner-manager to unlock emotions through the research Vince (2004).
Rigour. From a practitioner-manager view the process of generating knowledge throughout achieves intellectual rigor.  For example,  “instant debrief” after fieldwork immediately replaces “reports written later”. Participants interpretation of research vs  the researcher’s analysis or presentation provide a more rigorous approach to unlock knowledge otherwise tacit with participants.
Creative thinking. Creative thinking was associated with emotions, Damasio (2000). It is critically important for the practitioner manager to unlock them to gain and deeper understanding of the issues being investigated.  Along the same lines Gordon and Langmaid (1988) highlighted the importance of understanding confusion as a means to “ understanding something.” ?
Conclusion.
“Emergent inquiry” provides practitioner managers with powerful methods to conduct rigorous research. Clearly though, such methods have to be placed within a theoretical or ontological and epistemological underpinning in order to maintain rigor.  The emergent inquiry reshapes the researcher identity. From one hand, the researcher looses some elements of power to clients and participants for the sake of greater participation. From another hand the researcher or in this case the practitioner manager gain a more rigorous research and better data quality Keegan (2009).
The iterative knowledge creation and participatory approach, discussed above reinforce the validity of action research to conduct rigorous research and solve workplace-based problem. In our contemporary world were change is continuously affecting relationships of things around us, emergent inquiry is a powerful method to study such relationships and unlock the knowledge the research seeks. Without such factoring emotions into the research for example, the research would be practically invalid. The researcher is best positioned to disseminate knowledge because he/she is the one who created such knowledge and has an appreciation of what is in it. To devolve such task to any one else risk loosing the rigor of the research and loosing the essence of the research.

References

Cherkoff, J. and Moore, J. (2007), “Co-creation rules: the new realities of marketing in a networked world”, Proceedings of the Market Research Society Annual Conference, CD-ROM Proceedings.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine. 41, 1667-1676.
Creswell, J. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Damasio, A. (2000), The Feeling of What Happens, Vintage, London, pp. 35-81a, 35-81b, 40-1c, 42d.
Gioia, D.A. & Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, 12 (6), pp.433–448.
Gordon, W. and Langmaid, R. (1988), Qualitative Market Research, Admap Publications, London, p. 141.
Michael Marquardt & Deborah Waddill (2004) The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1:2, 185-202, DOI: 10.1080/1476733042000264146
Medeiros, A.C.M. and Needham, A. (2008), “The ‘Co-creation revolution.’”, Proceedings of the Innovate Conference, Copenhagen, June 2008, CD-ROM Proceedings.
Pakel-Dunlop, C. (2007), “Is spontaneity still relevant? The emergence of participative techniques”, Proceedings of the Esomar Annual Congress, Berlin, CD-ROM Proceedings.
Russ Vince (2004) Action learning and organizational learning: power, politics and emotion in organizations , Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1:1, 63-78
Sheila Keegan, (2009),”“Emergent inquiry””, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 234 – 248. Permanent link to this document:?http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750910948806
Weick, K.E. (1988) ‘Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations’, Journal of Management Studies, 25 (4), pp.305–317.

Student 3  John
Last week we discussed, debated and challenged the relationships between academic theory and practice and the most appropriate role of research in the business environment.  It was an interesting week of continued critique to support what is the best lens for insight to provide the optimal mode to enhance the scholar-practitioner experience.  Ultimately, appreciation of what our underlying audience expects should govern our processes, as well as what we expect from ourselves in the process, in order to dictate the importance of rigor, relevance, or a collaboration thereof.
As iterated last week, learning alone can only result in substandard application (Dibb, S. & Simkin, L., 2009, p. 224).  However, practice alone without a foundation of theory can result in substandard interpretation, reflection and analysis (Keegan, S., 2009, p. 238).  Does academic theory and practice play a significant role independently?  Absolutely.  Can both play a better role if harmonized collectively?  As debated last week, this is exactly what we are undertaking throughout our studies thus far with the University of Liverpool, and supported significantly by both Jenlink (2009) as he reflects on his mirror theory as both a leader practitioner and as a professor of leadership, as well as Keegan’s (2009) philosophy of emergent inquiry.
While we are stressed to become doctoral-level thinkers, critical action learners and action researchers, one can only appreciate the emotionally-charged tone of Keegan (2009) in encouragement of qualitative thinking as one appreciates the role of emotion involved in business management and decision making processes.  Albeit emotion prompts instinctive thoughts of losing one’s head, Keegan invokes an understanding of utilizing emotion as a rational tool versus that of being reactive.  As a researcher, intuition is given great credence as noisemaking has become more of an acceptable social constructivism trait today than traditional means of the past.
Keegan impresses that, while the role of researcher and client have overlapped of late to that of a co-creation methodology, it is important to recognize what the stakeholder ultimately expects, as noted above.  If a structured “traditional” approach is expected, then that is what should be adhered (p. 236), and the exact opposite holds true with a more progressive stakeholder expectation.  The importance is for the researcher to be self-aware to most appropriately apply a more empirical traditional approach, a constructivist creation of ongoing reality, or a collaboration of both (p. 237).
With this in mind, our debates of last week were all of significance and relevance, and we will all approach our thesis in varying ways based on this knowledge.  As a self-professed social constructivist, I will look to strive for “the edge of chaos” (p. 239) in hopes of promoting more tacit knowledge generation and contribution to a progressive theory, with this emotionally-charged and evolving noisemaking in a very encouraged nonlinear mode.  This emergent inquiry invokes a shared power by all parties involved (p. 243), and arguably, a more relevant appreciation for our studies themselves as we immerse ourselves to further bridge the rigor-relevance debate as we become process consultants (p. 244).
From an experiential standpoint, I had the pleasure today of speaking with an academic colleague of mine who is attending a different institution.  We were exchanging notes with respect to our experiences to date, and she was absolutely ecstatic with the excitement I portrayed by our interactions at the University of Liverpool, which she has not had the same pleasure.  Speaking along the lines of a novice researcher of course, I certainly do not profess to be anywhere close to possessing all knowledge necessary; however, from our exchanged notes, I can certainly attest that our knowledge creation to date, along with the critical reflection and action learning we have been involved, is certainly far more progressive than the experiences she has shared with me.
So, for that very reason, when I run across literature that speaks “to” me, rather than “at” me, such as Keegan’s emergent inquiry, I am grateful.  Her internal debates and paradigm challenges were constructively presented, with a reflection and appreciation of both classical methodologies as well as commercial practitioner highlights.  This, along with Jenlink’s (2009) experiential appreciations as a scholar and practitioner, gives us as novice researchers an acknowledgement that it is okay for us to be questioning of what methodologies will be best for us, that uncertainty is not a bad thing, and that these debates are to be appreciated as opportunities, rather than threats, during our academic careers.  In other words, our own critical reflections are continuing to grow, and I am sure I share the same experiences that my own critical thinking has evolved exponentially over the past four modules.  This alone, is an attestation to the bridge of rigor and relevance and its importance.
REFERENCES
•    Dibb, S. & Simkin, L. (2009) ‘Editorial: Bridging the segmentation theory/practice divide’, Journal Of Marketing Management, 25(3/4), pp. 219-225, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=39143238&site=eds-live&scope=site. (Accessed: 8 November 2014).
•    Jenlink, P.M. (2009) ‘The memory of practice and the mirror of theory’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (2), pp.74-78. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jls.20114/abstract (Accessed: 7 May 2015).
•    Keegan, S.S. (2009) ‘Emergent inquiry: a practitioner’s reflections on the development of qualitative research’, Qualitative Market Research, 12 (2), pp.234-248. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?articleid=1781057&show=abstract (Accessed: 7 May 2015).

Student 4  Artyom
DDP Clinic 2
Week 2 discussion paper
Introduction
The discussion last week was focused on the theory and practice debate. I will continue the discussion this week focusing mainly on the different types of knowledge created by management research.
Rigor and relevance
The classic academic view of a management research is that it should aim to create theoretical knowledge that can be generalized. This knowledge is also referred to as Mode 1 knowledge (Huff, 2000, Huff and Huff, 2001). The main characteristic of Mode 1 knowledge is that it is focused on rigor. The other type of knowledge is the Mode 2 knowledge which is to address specific problems and therefore is more focused on relevance. Many academics (Huff, 2000; Huff and Huff, 2001) recently suggested that there is a need for Mode 1.5 or Mode 3 knowledge which can be defined as both rigorous and relevant.
I believe that the framework suggested by Anderson, Herriot and Hodgkinson (2001) allows better explaining of the impact of rigor and relevance aspects on the knowledge created by management research.  They suggested that there are four types of management science based on the level of rigor and relevance. The first type is Pedantic Science, where the main focus is rigor and therefore I would argue it generates Mode 1 knowledge. The second type is Popularist Science with the main focus on relevance and I think the outcome of this science is Mode 2 knowledge. The third type is Pragmatic science which is both rigorous and relevant and therefore the outcome of this type of research would be Mode 3 (or Mode 1.5) knowledge. The final type is Puerile Science which is neither rigorous not relevant and I would define the knowledge generated by this type of research as Mode 4 knowledge.
I believe the main concern the academic community has is that by allowing focus on relevance the research might lose its focus on rigor to a level where it is qualified as Puerile Science. I doubt that there are any academics that are against Mode 3 knowledge creation as it seems that everyone aims to create rigorous and relevant knowledge. The problem, however, as already discussed last week, is that the classic academics are not convinced research can focus on both rigor and relevance.
I believe that the theory and practice linkage is important for Mode 3 knowledge creation. I think the one of the best descriptions of the theory-practice linkage that would result in Mode 3 knowledge is by Jenlink (2009), who himself is a scholar that came from practice, suggesting that “the memory of practice” should be brought in to the classroom and be reflected in the “mirror of the theory”. I would argue that “the memory of theory” brought in to an organization and reflected in the “mirror of practice” would also generate Mode 3 knowledge.
Classic research and emergent research
The common characteristic for all different types of knowledge (Mode 1 – Mode 4) described above is that they are expected to be very structured and logical. Keegan (2009) suggested that the classic research starts with gathering of unstructured data followed by analysis and interpretation of that data which results in structured and logical outcome.
In the current complex and fast changing world the classic research is not able to deliver outcomes that business is looking for. Keegan (2009) argued that in the classic research model the client had to define the research problem and the outcome of this classic research is Mode 1 knowledge which does not reflect any aspects of emotions, thoughts, etc. Keegan (2009) introduced the idea of Emergent Inquiry as a type of research that takes into account emotions, thoughts, etc. and as a result is aiming to generate knowledge that is evolving over time.
The “emergent inquiry” is defined as “collaborative or participative action research” (Keegan, 2009). In other words, in the emergent inquiry process the role of the researcher is not seen as an “expert”, which is the case in the classic research, any more and therefore “the power is not vested in one individual” but is distributed among all involved parties, e.g. researcher, research participants, clients, etc. *Keegan, 2009). The emergent inquiry as a scientific method, however, has to follow the same scientific principals as the classic research: defining objectives, data gathering, analysis, interpretation, etc. This type of inquiry aims to combine “facilitation, observation, leadership, analysis, critical thinking. Reflexivity, emotional and sensory awareness, hypothesis generation and testing, creative thinking and more” and therefore, if conducted properly, it can deliver an outcome which is fit for purpose for today’s complex and ever changing world.
Conclusion
Even though the impression created might be that I favor Mode 3 knowledge, I believe that it can only be developed if there is already a relevant “base theory”. In other words, I believe Mode 1 knowledge is required and it should be the foundation for the Mode 3 knowledge creation. I also believe that a Mode 3 knowledge created by an emergent research is what practitioners are looking for today as that is what can provide them with a holistic solution to their wicked problems (Churchman, 1967).
References
Churchman, C. W. (1967) ‘Wicked Problems”, Management Science, Vol. 14, No. 4, Application Series, pp. B141-B142 Published by: INFORMSStable (Online) Available online at:  http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/stable/pdfplus/2628678.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true (Accessed: 30 April 2014)
Huff, A.S. (2000) ‘1999 Presidential address: changes in organizational knowledge production’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (2), pp.288-293, Available from: http://openurl.ac.uk/?title=Academy+of+Management+Review&volume=25&issue=2&spage=288&date=2000 (Accessed: 07 January 2015)
Huff, A.S.; Huff, J.O. (2001) ‘Re-focusing the business school agenda’, British Journal of Management, 12, pp.S49-S54, Available from: http://openurl.ac.uk/?title=British+Journal+of+Management&volume=12&issue=&spage=S49&date=2001 (Accessed: 07 January 2015)
Jenlink, P. M. (2009) ‘The memory of practice and the mirror of theory’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (2), pp.74-78. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jls.20114/abstract (Accessed: 6 May 2015)
Keegan, S.S. (2009) ‘Emergent inquiry: a practitioner’s reflections on the development of qualitative research’, Qualitative Market Research, 12 (2), pp.234-248. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?articleid=1781057&show=abstract (Accessed: 12 May 2015).

Student 5 CK
Dear Classmates,
Pleased to share my synthesis to this week’s discussion questions.
Introduction
This week’s discussion focuses on the importance of emergence and emotions that has generated a shift in commercial qualitative research of today. Importantly however, this synthesis does not consider a single approach to qualitative research, but instead suggests an collective approach of emergence inquiry that retains scientific traditions while acknowledging of today’s need ever-changing dynamics and cultural context.
Complexity Sciences & Emergence
It has been suggested that complexity sciences refers society and culture as independent rather than collective based on the argument that marketing and the media including brand evolution, online communications, crowd behaviour, all contribute to day-to-day interaction and thereby emergence is produced (Keegan, 2009). This in turn argues that emergence evolves through the interactions of local-levels made possible by the medium of the World Wide Web which cannot be merely understood by a linear approach of cause and effect due to the layers of media and marketing (Keegan, 2009). Moreover, emergence focuses on the influence of one’s present experience which is also subjected to the past that reconstructed the future through a circular time structure (Keegan, 2009).
Hence, suggesting that emergence is positioned well within the framework of commercial qualitative research that adopts the exploratory approach of on-going communication within the present moment that studies the interrelating qualities between brands, individuals, the environment, and the cultural context while not being bounded by any imposed rules (Keegan, 2009). By diving deeper beyond the mundane, the researcher needs to establish new connections, generate alternative viewpoints and emotional responses, thereby producing new ways of resolving research issues (Keegan, 2009). In many sense, this is aligned to the concept of ‘emergent properties’ that requires the dynamics and involving change in the state of information over time that generates a change in behaviour (Harry, 2001). The attempt on imposing the classical scienti?c framework onto emergence interaction is said to be unsuccessful as it struggles against the ever-changing ?uid culture that requires the collective needs between the researcher and the respondent (Keegan, 2009).
The Spatial & Temporal Research Model
On hindsight, the traditional approach to knowledge is understood as a “thing” which is organised and defined, cohesive in nature, consistent, and is not subjected to emotions, thereby challenging the new “definition” of knowledge that is emergent and holistic (Keegan, 2009). In compared to this spatial model, the temporal model to qualitative research argues that knowledge instead is emotionally charges, evolves constantly, and changes over time (Keegan, 2009). More importantly, it is the principles of intellectual rigour that is required to compliment this new ongoing progression of knowledge generation in which the researcher must acquire the right qualitative skill set to reflect, track, and evaluate the researching findings (Keegan, 2009). In a pragmatic sense, both researcher and respondent play a supportive and collective role towards a constructive and “living” conversation that produces the desired research practice appropriate in today’s emergence setting (Keegan, 2009).
Emotions: Neuroscience Contributing to Commercial Qualitative Thinking
Another perspective that has shifted the commercial qualitative thinking is based on the arguments of neuroscience which suggest emotion and rationality operates alongside that generates creative thinking (Keegan, 2009). In other words, the intuition, rationality, creative thinking, and physiological responses of an individual during interacting with another requires the “whole body” experience which is generally not acceptable from the classical science standpoint due to the unquantifiable nature (Keegan, 2009). The argument continues from the neurological viewpoint that opinions, feelings, and emotions are all part of an individual’s support system that creates the foundation of undefined human reasoning (Keegan, 2009).
Hence, the need to acknowledge emotional experience as a fundamental element in qualitative research. This natural aspect has been unnaturally removed by the widely-accepted classical scienti?c approach which results in pure literal interpretation (Keegan, 2009). Embracing the belief of emotions in qualitative research on the other hand is suggested to gain a richer view that is more pragmatic and articulates “real life” findings for the research (Keegan, 2009). Nevertheless, this is not in any way suggesting that researchers to fully rely on their emotions and instincts during data-collection as a certain level of disciplined still needs to be in place (Keegan, 2009). The fundamental idea is to tap on emotions that generates confusion which leads to the understanding of something new by reflecting, challenging underlying assumptions and increasing the depth of understanding (Keegan, 2009).
Emergent Inquiry: Integrated Approach to Qualitative Research
Based on the twofold perspective of emergence and emotions, it is suggested that “Emergent Inquiry” should be the way forward where the study will still be conducted under the principles of qualitative traditions but acknowledges the need to reflect on the ever-changing climate and needs of the client (Keegan, 2009). The notion for emergent inquiry adopt a methodology that focuses on “in the moment” research which incorporates the emergence of ideas and feelings that are shaped by the researcher and all relevant stakeholders (Keegan, 2009). In turn, this creates a research that is both holistic and temporal that embraces “stream of consciousness” (Keegan, 2009).
Conclusion
As I reflect on this week’s discussion, I believe that both scientific research and commercial studies produces knowledge that is valuable but potentially to different set of audience. A highly theoretical model or understanding might not be relevant to a practitioner in terms of problem-handling, but it does provide knowledge to the individual of what might or might not work within a certain business setting. Moreover, such knowledge can be highly valuable in the future while educating students for important values. Commercial research on the other hand is focused on the client’s needs but could be subjected to a “one-off” knowledge to the business firm. Based on this week’s readings, I feel that the integrated towards the emergence inquiry is admirable but will not be easy to administer due to the required skill sets of the researcher needs to conduct such data-collection. However, the need to be able to conduct such research practices will yield knowledge that will be crucial to the ever-changing dynamic society we live in today.
Reference
Harry, M. (2001) Business Information: A Systems Approach. 3rd ed. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Keegan, S. (2009) ‘Emergent inquiry: A practitioner’s re?ections on the development of qualitative research’. Qualitative Market Research [Online], 12 (2), pp. 234 – 248. Available online from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1108/13522750910948806 (Accessed: 14 May 2015).
Looking forward to your comments and insights.
Thanks

Student 6 andreas
Dear all
Do you know how to cite an article or a book if the author published more than one in the same year?
For example:
Keegan, S.S. (2009) ‘Emergent inquiry: a practitioner’s reflections on the development of qualitative research’, Qualitative Market Research, 12 (2), pp.234-248.
Keegan, S. (2009). Qualitative research: good decision making through understanding people, cultures and markets. Kogan Page Publishers.
Thank you and kind regards
Andreas

Student 8 hayyim
Week 2 – DQ2 – DPP2 module

Introduction

Jenlink (2009) discussion’s focused on the theory and experience relations as a base for scholar – practice. This week reading (Keegan, 2009) elevates it one level up and propose approach – emergence inquiry – that recognize the “need for speed” in the hectic business environment from one hand and on the other hand enable to preserve the required scientific standards by including emergence and emotions a part of the process.
In this essay I will critically review the approach and discuss its implication for practice.

Business world and traditional science
Chelimsky (2013) claimed that today we could see closer relationship between practitioners and scholars. While Jenlink (2009) debated whether experience is important for education and practice contribute to research she theory, she has a definitive approach. She claims that, from one hand, they need to be independent, to gain their legitimacy, however they have mutual contribution, while theory generalize the practice and practice bring theory down to earth.
Bartunek (2008) saw it more one directionally and found that only few claimed that practice add to theory. Several researchers amongst them Bartunek (2008), Van de Ven (2007) and Bouck (2011) proposed actionable plans in order to shorten the distance between academia and business, but as Chelimsky (2013) described although practitioners know they depend on theories for better performance and scholars understand the need for speed and other constrains, we didn’t make significant progress.
In order to come with new approach Keegan (2009) summarize the differences between academia and business with the following: Research in the real world should enable manager to choose action or take a decision while academic research focus on knowledge creation.
Due to many changes like the need for speed, accumulated knowledge, many stakeholders, occurred a shift of the role and the perception of the commercial qualitative research.  It is also shifted from “pure” empirical research of gathering data to social construction where we interpret the world and the process become creative and iterative. But the main challenge here in order to maintain academic standards is to maintain qualitative thinking – the ability to make connections, the ability to listen and to reflect etc. Keegan didn’t explain yet how this – qualitative thinking can be incorporated into commercial research within the limitation of time and speed.

Emergence and emotions – making sense of the real world

Keegan (2009) presented another significant changes that would impact the commercial qualitative research. Both were derived from different scientific developments.
The first – emergence – was derived form complexity science (Stacy, 2001). Complexity science change the way we think about society. Instead of thinking about collections we should understand the interconnection between the components of the society.
Emergence, which is crucial pillar in the complexity theory, is hard to define (Keegan, 2009). I will try to define it as a process of pattern generation, which is not linear – more spiral than linear – from, and not only, interconnection between the society components.
Since emergence iterates relations it contributes to quality research which, is all about relationship (Keegan, 2009). The process of emergence, of creativity, iterative, going back and forward and so forth is what contributes to the rigor of the process. This type of process also enables immersion of many stakeholders into the process and enriches the outcome.
The second – emotions – was derived from neuroscience, and based on Damasio (2000) theory that explain that our brain uses more evolved part in decision making that take into consideration emotions, that part in the brain that use only for rational actions. The idea is to include all our capability – rational and creative, emotions and intelligent – in order to better interpret the reality. It enables us to, be flexible with the research and less rigid, understand that the problem is part of the process and not the goal of the process. But in spite of the “shanti” and the flexible approach, it is not boundary less. We can think of it like a jazz session when the musical scale is set, but each of the musicians can improvise to enrich the melody.
Summary and implications:
I must admit that although it is considered as breakthrough article, and the fact that Keegan (2009) wrote this based on 30 years of experience it is more scholar-type article than written from practitioner point of view.
I like the idea of “puffing” air into academic research and legitimate the improvisation. However it didn’t take into consideration the impact of big data especially on marketing research. This article considers the qualitative research as the leading theme in the marketing and commercial research, that the Internet is one of the promoters of the emergence idea. But the Internet also promotes the big data research that becomes major tool helping management to take decisions (Bollier and Firestone, 2010).
The coming of big data won’t lessening the need for what Keegan (2009) called “qualitative thinking”, because it is not only about the research approach (qualitative) but also how to interpret the reality. I understand that some might think that big data is about data (obviously) and how it allows for creative, analytical capability, improvisation to be part of the research and the process.
I think that the complexity of the world is so big, so even with this big data that no organization can comprehends, the need for the researcher capability to make sense is increase exponentially, and this is the major contribution of Keegan’s article.

References:

Bartunek, J. M. (2008) ‘You’re an organization development practitioner-scholar: Can you contribute to organizational theory?’, Organization Management Journal, 5(1), 6-16.

Bollier, D., & Firestone, C. M. (2010). The promise and peril of big data (p. 56). Washington, DC, USA: Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program.

Bouck, G. M. (2011) ‘Scholar-Practitioner Identity: A Liminal Perspective’, Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(2), 201-210.

Chelimsky, E. (2013) ‘Balancing evaluation theory and practice in the real world’, American Journal of Evaluation, 34(1), 91-98.

Damasio, A. (2000) The Feeling of What Happens, Vintage:London

Jenlink, P. M. (2009) ‘The memory of practice and the mirror of theory’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (2), pp.74-78.

Keegan, S.S. (2009) ‘Emergent inquiry: a practitioner’s reflections on the development of qualitative research’, Qualitative Market Research, 12 (2), pp.234-248.

Stacey, R. D. (2001) Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. Psychology Press.

Van de Ven, A.H. (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and research knowledge. New York: Oxford University press.

Student 9 nyrozi
Commercial business research: its components and applications
Introduction
Qualitative research can span a wide variety of methodologies, is influenced by a broad range of factors the key is which is the purpose of the study. Qualitative studies draw strength and versatility from the ability to provide textual descriptions of peoples’ experience that pertains to the issue being considered (Bryman & Bell, 2015). They can present the human side of a phenomenon such as beliefs, opinion, often contradictory behaviors, emotions, as well as individual relationships. Qualitative methods are also imperative in identifying imperceptible factors such as socioeconomic status, social norms, gender roles and religion, whose role in the phenomenon may not be readily discernable (Jenlink, 2009).
The primary purpose of business research, however, is to unbiased and structured perspectives that allow business firms to provision their customers with the most appropriate goods and services and to deliver them in the most efficient manner (Jenlink, 2009). As such most firms are rather inclined towards commercial qualitative research, which serves to help guide the business decision made by the clients. The purpose of the study is to determine primarily perceived usefulness; if the client cannot make better decisions, it holds no value. On the contrary, academic research is primarily concerned with generating knowledge.  Consequently, there exists a great disparity in perspectives, styles and approaches to methodologies and analytical styles between the two distinct approaches (Keegan, 2009).
What is commercial qualitative research?
Traditionally, commercial qualitative research was rooted in scientific principles but has over the years tended towards a fluid exploratory approach. The research participants are viewed as co-creators of the research outcomes; the members are regarded as experts based on their experiences, while the researchers have to apply their expertise in the context of the participants’ experiences for the benefits of the client, as well as the consumers (Keegan, 2009). Thus, commercial qualitative research is rapidly moving from the detached observer data gathering approach and is increasingly gravitating towards a social construction, which delves into the cultural and historical context. From this new perspective, the knowledge gained by an individual is based on their interpretation of the world which is adversely influenced by their social and cultural settings (Keegan, 2009).
Commercial qualitative research is credited with the ability to make the connection between various factors, improvisations, and its flexibility to include new emergent information. As such, it has been possible to incorporate new scientific breakthroughs that make it relatively simpler to understand the essence of human communication and experiential learning (Keegan, 2009). Consequently, two broad concepts have been infused into commercial qualitative research, emergence and emotional concepts. The development concept draws from the complexity sciences, which examines the relationships between things instead of focusing solely on their presence in culture and society. It postulates that cultures are constantly changing and accordingly, changes the cultural interpretation of a particular phenomenon (Keegan, 2009). Emergence is premised on the assumption both consumers, and suppliers are significantly influenced by the current trends and happenings in the market place.
How do they embrace emergent technology?
For instance, in the marketing and advertising world, the most recent buzzwords include viral marketing which emerged after the evolution of email and social media marketing; herds and hive minds which refer to the congregation of people on websites that tailored to their particular interests. Hence, the internet can be viewed as the most influential emergence medium of recent times (Goggin, 2006). The many and always changing facets of the internet, continually creates more avenues for service providers to interact with their customers and generate feedback from them. Social media platforms are increasingly becoming data collection channels through which commercial qualitative research can be carried out. The ease of communication through the various online platforms allows researchers interact freely with the research participants and gain insights that may not have been apparent in a different research setting.
What is the role of emotional response in commercial research?
The emotional concept, on the other hand, takes cognizance that decision-making in the human brain involves more than rational thoughts, and the role emotions play in making these decisions (Keegan, 2009). It postulates that experiences are a culmination of a whole body learning experience, central to which is the emotional status of the concerned individual. This concept is premised on the fact that opinions and feelings are informed by past experiences or future expectations that are centered on around emotions. Therefore, emotion is critical and a necessary component of experiential learning and underpins research findings.  When researchers incorporate emotions in research findings, they can gain a deeper insight into the issue being investigated (Keegan, 2009).
What are the components of an emergent inquiry?
Therefore, if any practitioner needs to investigate the effects of introducing an electronic procurement system into the work place, they would be better placed to incorporate the concept of emergence and emotions into the research methodologies in order to have a full understanding of the effect of these changes on the stakeholders. It is, therefore, important for the researcher to conduct an emergent inquiry i.e. a collaborative action research often viewed as an ongoing iterative learning process (Keegan, 2009). As such the research process involves all parties that are affected by these changes affected, and leaves room for effects that are realized after the process has been implemented by were not as apparent from the onset.
In an emergent inquiry, the problem definition is carried out in a broader context that includes all the stakeholders as well as opposed to the clients defining the problem themselves. As such a manager should incorporate views from the workers as part of the organizational learning and change development, and encompasses views from the workers. Such consultations would define the problem being investigated, and valid research parameters instituted. After the sudy has been completed, the researcher is also charged with helping to disseminate the study’s outcome and helping the employees put the results into practical use (Keegan, 2009). Taking on this approach minimizes opposition, and everyone in the organization gets to be part of the change process.
Conclusion
The inquiry method is an efficient way to carry out commercial qualitative research as it encompasses views and inputs from the stakeholders, adopts new and versatile approaches and is fluid in its execution. Consequently, the researchers can gain better insight into areas that were previously lost to them.

References
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Goggin, G. (2006). Cell Phone Culture: Mobile Technology in Everyday Life. London:
Routledge
Keegan, S.S. (2009) ‘Emergent inquiry: a practitioner’s reflections on the development of
qualitative research’, Qualitative Market Research, 12 (2), pp.234-248.
Jenlink, P.M. (2009) ‘The memory of practice and the mirror of theory’, Journal of Leadership
Studies, 3 (2), pp.74-78.

Post your initial responses to the Learning Set Discussion Forum be sure to engage your Learning Set members with questions about the readings or the above activities.
Your participation this week is required.  Remember that your responses will be assessed based upon the timeliness and quality of your work in your Learning Set.  You are expected to participate substantially; specifically, you are to post at least 12 meaningful and insightful responses to your Learning Set.  First read the students responses before respond.
Your Doctoral Tutor will look for the following contributions to the dialogue in your posts:
1.    Asking insightful questions
2.    Adding to the learning of the Set
3.    Offering contributions based upon the literature and your practice
4.    Engaging in critically collaborative inquiry
5.    Promoting critical reflection in set members
6.    Please use external sources and citation while answering responses.
+exity of electronic equipment, the high cost of repair, and the gap between manufacturers’ warranty cover and expected service life of the appliance. Only at the conclusion of this aggressive pitch were they to offer the customer the warranty extension.

If a supervisor determined that the scripted sales pitch was not delivered in its entirety, or that the salesperson had not offered the warranty on an eligible sale, it would result in a recorded exception that would be written up as a demerit. Preliminary research showed that buyers who received the canned presentation at the point of sale were five times more likely to buy the extended warranty than those who were not exposed to it, and management was forceful in its implementation of this practice.

Phil was able to see the effectiveness of this strategy right away. He saw how easy it was to convince certain customers of the importance of buying warranty
protection on what may well be one of the most expensive items in their homes. Only a month into the job, he received a check for $360.40 as his incentive pay for selling warranty extensions during the period. He was impressed by the success of this marketing strategy which appeared to tie together concepts he had learned back in college: pricing and promotion from a marketing class, and probabilities and failure rates from a statistics class. Being an eager learner and wanting to understand retail customers better, he soon found himself playing a little game at every opportunity: He would try to guess ahead of time whether a customer was going to buy the extended warranty or not. Guess what! His marketing professor was right after all. He could understand his customers well enough to predict their decision. He was batting 0.80 within a week, and at times could accurately predict the customer’s decision more than ten times in a row! He was proud of his ability to link his classroom knowledge to his professional environment.

Dinner Table Reactions
“Wow! That is so cool,” Maria couldn’t help thinking over and over. She secretly hoped that the day would not be too far off when she would be able to recount her own story of professional success in a similar setting. Phil just beamed.

“So, Phil, did you notice any pattern in the profile of the customers who bought the extended warranty?” Dr. Smith asked as he crumbled more crackers into soup. “As a matter of fact, I did,” replied Phil. “It always seemed like the blue-collar types… single moms… older males in overalls, plaids… these are the ones that end up buying the warranty. Aged grandpas and grandmas… they were a sure bet too.”

Dr. Smith peered over his horn-rimmed glasses. “What about the customers that could not be convinced? Who were they?” Phil paused for a moment before replying. “It was always the younger customers and professionals that declined.”

“Why do you think that is the case?” Dr. Smith persisted.

“I guess they are educated and savvy enough to figure out that the risk of needing costly repairs beyond the manufacturer’s warranty was way too low to justify buying the extended warranty,” answered Phil. “Heck! I would never buy that extended warranty myself. Ever.” he added.

“Did any of this ever bother you?” Fr. George asked as he looked directly into Phil’s eyes. The ruddy, jolly face with its twinkling green eyes and furrowed brow was the same as it always had been. Phil wondered why, suddenly, he began to feel just a little uncomfortable.