A note on how research philosophy choice affects writing style and argumentation orientation in MBA dissertation report writing

A note on how research philosophy choice affects writing style and argumentation orientation in MBA dissertation report writing (information from perplexity.ai)

My question: "In the context of doing MBA dissertation projects, does the choice of research philosophy to use influence: (1) the academic writing style used in the report writing and (2) the argumentation approach and analysis orientation in the report writing? Could you provide 3 illustrative examples in your discussion?"

The reply: "Yes. The research philosophy you adopt typically shapes both (1) the writing style and tone, and (2) the way you build arguments and orient your analysis in an MBA dissertation.

1. How philosophy shapes writing style

In positivist dissertations, the writing tends to be impersonal, detached, and highly structured, with heavy use of the passive voice and technical vocabulary, because the goal is to appear objective and neutral. Interpretivist work is usually written in a more personal, reflexive, and narrative tone, explicitly acknowledging the researcher’s position and using richer description to convey meaning and context. Pragmatist writing often blends these styles: it is practical and problem-focused, comfortable mixing formal quantitative reporting with more accessible narrative sections when this helps decision makers.

2. How philosophy shapes argumentation and analysis

Positivism pushes you toward arguments built around hypotheses, variables, and measurable relationships, with analysis organized around statistical tests, model fit, and generalizable claims. Interpretivism pushes you toward arguments built around interpretation of meanings, themes, and processes, with analysis organized around thick description, thematic patterns, and alternative readings of the data. Pragmatism orients arguments toward “what works” for the problem: analysis is organized around how different forms of evidence (quantitative and qualitative) converge to support actionable recommendations.

A practical implication for MBA students is that your paradigm provides the standards by which you judge literature, design your methods, and justify your interpretation of findings, so it naturally shapes how you argue throughout the dissertation.

3. Example 1 – Positivist MBA dissertation

Suppose an MBA dissertation tests whether transformational leadership increases employee engagement in Hong Kong retail firms using a survey and regression. A positivist stance frames the study as discovering objective relationships, with writing that emphasizes reliability, validity, and statistical significance, and uses formulaic reporting like “H1 is supported.” Argumentation progresses from theory → hypotheses → measures → statistical results → generalizable implications, with limited attention to individual voices or contextual nuance. The analysis orientation is deductive and confirmatory: the main question is whether numerical data support pre-specified hypotheses and how strong the effects are.

4. Example 2 – Interpretivist MBA dissertation

Now imagine a dissertation exploring how first-line managers make sense of digital transformation in a housing association, using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. An interpretivist stance frames the goal as understanding subjective meanings, so the writing is more descriptive and context-rich, often using participants’ own words and explicitly discussing the researcher’s role and assumptions. Arguments are built by moving between data excerpts and interpretations, showing how themes like “loss of professional identity” or “pragmatic adaptation” emerge and relate to existing theory. The analysis orientation is inductive and exploratory: the focus is on depth, variation in perspectives, and how context shapes experience rather than on generalizable causal claims.

5. Example 3 – Pragmatist mixed‑methods MBA dissertation

Consider a pragmatist dissertation on improving customer retention in a Singaporean bank, using both customer survey data and follow‑up interviews with relationship managers. A pragmatist stance defines success in terms of solving the business problem, so the writing often alternates between concise reporting of statistics (e.g., satisfaction scores, churn models) and narrative accounts that clarify “why” patterns occur. Argumentation weaves quantitative and qualitative strands together (triangulation), emphasizing convergence of evidence to support concrete recommendations, such as redesigning a loyalty program or retraining frontline staff. The analysis orientation is problem-centered and flexible: methods and styles are justified less by allegiance to a single paradigm and more by their usefulness for informing managerial decisions."

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.

A note on the literature review task to conduct theory-driven investigation: for MBA students

A note on the literature review task to conduct theory-driven investigation: for MBA students (information from perplexity.ai)

My question: "Regarding doing a 5-month part-time MBA dissertation projects, one of the main topics is on literature review on gathering, evaluating, synthesising and adopting some useful academic concepts, perspectives and theories to inform research methods design and, subsequently to conduct theory-driven analysis in order to address a few specific research objectives and questions. Please offer 4 main advice on how to effectively carry out this kind of literature review tasks."

The reply: "Effective literature reviews for a 5-month part-time MBA dissertation focus on targeted searches, critical evaluation, and synthesis to build a theory-driven framework for research methods and analysis. Tailored to your pragmatism-oriented projects in MBA/Housing Studies, here are four key pieces of advice.

Develop Search Strategy

Start with your research objectives and questions to identify keywords, synonyms, and clusters (e.g., "pragmatism research philosophy," "mixed methods MBA dissertation"). Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or your university's resources, prioritizing recent (past 5-10 years) peer-reviewed journals; apply inclusion criteria such as relevance to Hong Kong contexts or theory applicability. Snowball from key articles via citations and "related works" to efficiently gather 20-40 sources within your time constraints.

Evaluate Sources Critically

Scan abstracts, intros, and conclusions first to assess credibility, methodology strengths/weaknesses, and fit for your objectives (e.g., does the theory support theory-driven analysis?). Note validity, generalizability (especially to Asian business settings), and biases; discard low-impact or outdated works. Create a summary table logging themes, gaps, and critiques to track how sources inform methods design.

Synthesize Thematically

Group sources by themes (e.g., positivism vs. pragmatism), theories (3-4 complementary ones like RBV with dynamic capabilities), or methodologies, comparing/contrasting to build a consolidated framework. Use synthesis tools like matrices or maps to reveal patterns, contradictions, and gaps your study addresses, ensuring links to research questions. This creates a mid-range theory tailored for your analysis, avoiding mere summaries.

Link to Methods and Objectives

Explicitly connect synthesized concepts to your research methods (e.g., pragmatist mixed methods) and objectives, visualizing via diagrams showing framework flow to analysis. Structure writing with intro (scope), thematic sections, and conclusion (gaps/implications), maintaining your authorial voice. Allocate ~4-6 weeks iteratively, refining as your proposal evolves."

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.

A note on the literature review task to examine research gaps: for MBA students

A note on the literature review task to examine research gaps: for MBA students (information from perplexity.ai)

My question : "Regarding MBA dissertation projects, one of the main topics is on literature review on research gaps on a specific research topic, e.g. on entrepreneurial journey or organizational resilience. Please offer 4 main advice on how to effectively carry out this kind of literature review tasks."

The reply: "For MBA dissertations, an effective gap-focused literature review needs a clear search strategy, critical synthesis, and an explicit link to your research question. Here are four focused pieces of advice.

1. Start with a sharp focus and search plan

• Define your scope tightly: population (e.g. first‑generation entrepreneurs in HK), context (sector/region), and key constructs (e.g. opportunity recognition, resilience, effectuation). This prevents a vague, narrative review.

• Translate your topic into keyword clusters (core terms, synonyms, related constructs) and combine them with Boolean logic in academic databases (AND, OR, NOT).

• Set inclusion/exclusion criteria up front: publication date window (e.g. last 5–7 years), peer‑reviewed only, language, empirical/theoretical, and relevance to your specific context.

• Log everything in a simple spreadsheet (citation, method, sample, key findings, relevance) so you can later map and sort studies systematically.

2. Read critically, not just descriptively

• Use “smart reading”: start with abstract, then introduction, then findings/discussion to decide whether a paper deserves deep reading, which saves time on marginally relevant work.

• For each study, note its theoretical lens, methodology, sample, main findings, and stated limitations; this is the raw material for identifying patterns and weaknesses.

• Ask consistently: What problem is this study really addressing? What assumptions does it make? Where are its methods or context limited?

• Deliberately record studies that contradict each other; disagreements often signal interesting gaps in theory, method, or context.

3. Synthesize around themes, debates, and gaps

• Group studies into coherent themes (e.g. stages of the entrepreneurial journey, individual vs organizational resilience factors, measurement approaches) rather than summarizing article‑by‑article.

• Within each theme, compare: where do authors converge, where do they diverge, and how do differences in context or method explain that?

• Treat “gap spotting” as structured: look for under‑studied contexts (e.g. Asian SMEs), neglected variables (e.g. family dynamics in entrepreneurial resilience), or underused methods (e.g. longitudinal designs).

• End each thematic subsection with a short “so what” paragraph that states what we know, what is contested, and what is missing; these feed directly into your final gap statement.

4. Make the gap and your contribution explicit and aligned

• In the final part of the review, synthesize upwards: briefly recap the main patterns and tensions, then state the specific gap your study will address (who/what/where/how is missing).

• Ensure your research questions follow logically from that gap; a reader should be able to see the direct line from prior limitations to your objectives.

• Frame the practical and theoretical value of filling this gap (e.g. implications for entrepreneurial support policies, contributions to resilience theory in emerging markets).

• Keep your writing structured and signposted (introduction, thematic sections, gap/contribution), and maintain your own authorial voice rather than a patchwork of quotations.

If you share a specific topic (say, entrepreneurial journey in Hong Kong family businesses), I can help you turn this into a concrete search and thematic coding plan.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.