Methods of research week 4 tutorial - elric honore 2012

617 views

Published on

Group notes from discussion

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
617
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/patent_stats_methodology.pdf Not all inventions are patented. There are other alternatives such as trade secrecy or technical know-how available to inventors for protecting their inventions. _ Use of the patent system for protecting inventions varies across countries and industries. Applicants’ different filing strategies or filing preferences may render direct comparison of patent statistics difficult. _ Differences in patent systems may influence the applicant’s patent filing decisions in different countries. _ Due to the increase in the internationalization of research and development (R&D) activity, R&D may be conducted in one location but the protection for the invention might be sought in a different one. _ Cross-border patent filings depend on various factors, such as trade flows, foreign direct investment, market size of a country, etc.
  • Methods of research week 4 tutorial - elric honore 2012

    1. 1. <ul><li>Methods of Research </li></ul><ul><li>Semester 2 2011/2012 </li></ul><ul><li>MSc in International Business & Emerging Markets </li></ul><ul><li>MSc in Management </li></ul><ul><li>Tutorials / Group Discussion Notes </li></ul><ul><li>Tutor: Elric Honore – [email_address] </li></ul>
    2. 2. Week 3: Literature searching and reviewing <ul><li>Introduction / Housekeeping ~1 mins </li></ul><ul><li>Q&A, Resource Requests 15 mins </li></ul><ul><li>Week 4 / Case Study 4 25 mins </li></ul><ul><li>Group Feedback / Discussion 15 mins </li></ul><ul><li>Total 55 mins End of session 1-2-1 QA: ~5 mins </li></ul>
    3. 3. Q&A <ul><li>Group / Learning relevant: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>from previous week case study (‘accessing the angels’ / design flaws), reading, lectures, reading, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Practical / Logistics: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>assessment,timetabling, WebCT, slideshare, links & further materials, etc </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Week 3 Resource Requests <ul><li>Research Proposals: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Find the right audience (supervisors) and/or opportunity (e.g. http:// www.findaphd.com / ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usually 1500 to 2000 words (or 2 pages), with these headings: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Working title / topic area </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Overview of topic / rationale of interest and/or competencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relevant literature / Identified Gap or Problem </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Research question(s) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A basic Methodology </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bibliography (trusted sources ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CRUCIAL for Business/Management proposal: SMART ( S pecific, M easurable, A chievable, R ealistic and T ime-bound) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Useful Guidelines ( imho ) : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Elements of a proposal’ ( http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/proposal.html ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISOS/Salford http://www.isos.salford.ac.uk/how_to_write_a_research_proposal.php </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><ul><li>Positivist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental / Quasi-experimental </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relativist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Survey (factual, inferential, exploratory) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constructivist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Action-research/co-operative enquiry </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ethnography </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Narrative/Discourse Analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed/Multi-method/Cross-paradigm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Case Studies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GTM (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) </li></ul></ul></ul>Week 4: Design, More Design
    6. 6. <ul><ul><li>WHO? Topic/field/area? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WHAT ? Unit/level of analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WHEN? Cross sectional or longitudinal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WHERE? Universal theory or local knowledge? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WHY? Reductionism or holism? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IN WHAT WAY? Deductive or inductive? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BY WHAT MEANS? Validity and generaliseability? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>*HOW QUANTIFIED? Numeric/Non-numeric research? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Quis, quid, quando, ubi, cur, quem ad modum, quibus adminiculis * ” - Hermagoras of Temnos , ‘Elements of circumstance’ ~1 B.C </li></ul>Week 4: Even More design
    7. 7. <ul><ul><li>3 stages (ideally): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Planning (e.g. a ‘fair’ literature review, consent) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data Collection (e.g. continuous dialogue, participant feedback) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Writing (e.g. what goes in the text, what is left out, peer-review) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An iterative process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For in-depth discussion: Simpson, B. (2011) ‘Ethical moments: future directions for ethical review and ethnography’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 377–393, June 2011. </li></ul></ul></ul>Week 4: Ethics, More Ethics
    8. 8. Case Study 4: Patent Grants and Implication for Business <ul><ul><li>Why the suggestion for 2 nd ary data? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What sources were identified? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How well justified is the proposal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How would you refine the discussion? http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/ </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Group Feedback / Discussion (because collective intelligence matters) <ul><ul><li>Q: Why the suggestion for secondary data? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A: it is more relevant! Also: timescales, lack of funds/resources to gather another comparable set </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Q: What sources were identified? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A: wipo, and only wipo </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Q: How well justified is the proposal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A: spot on for the ‘gap’; but not thorough on the methodology/limitations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Q: How would you refine the discussion? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A: refer to wipo’s ‘disclaimers’ in methodology, expand on further research models </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Further useful resources: <ul><li>Theses & Dissertations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Edinburgh Research Archive http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business School/Management Specific: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/867 </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. <ul><li>Next week: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Read Case Study 5 ahead </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do contribute and question during tutorials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Notes from this tutorial: http://www.slideshare.net/elrichonore </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Qs - email: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Thank you </li></ul>

    ×