IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03147047.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

I Never Promised You a Rose Garden: When Research Questions Ought to Change

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Macintosh
  • Jean Bartunek
  • Mamta Bhatt

    (LEM - Lille économie management - UMR 9221 - UA - Université d'Artois - UCL - Université catholique de Lille - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Donald Maclean

Abstract

This chapter addresses the common assumption that research questions are fixed at the outset of a study and should remain stable thereafter. We consider field-based organizational research and ask whether and when research questions can legitimately change. We suggest that change can, does, and indeed should occur in response to changes in the context within which the research is being conducted. Using an illustrative example, we identify refinement and reframing as two distinct types of research question development. We conclude that greater transparency over research question evolution would be a healthy development for the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Macintosh & Jean Bartunek & Mamta Bhatt & Donald Maclean, 2016. "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden: When Research Questions Ought to Change," Post-Print hal-03147047, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03147047
    DOI: 10.1108/S0897-301620160000024003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Coghlan & Abraham B. (Rami) Shani, 2021. "Abductive Reasoning as the Integrating Mechanism between First- Second- and Third-Person Practice in Action Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 463-474, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03147047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.