A discussion of research types using an MBA research theme of “low-pressure getaways”

A discussion of research types using an MBA research theme of “low-pressure getaways”

 

Regarding the topic of research types, if my MBA dissertation research theme is "to evaluate the service quality and customer experience of low-pressure getaways in Hong Kong", is it descriptive research, exploratory research or evaluation research? Of considering the research theme as different research types mean the formulated research objectives and research question will differ?

Your MBA dissertation theme “to evaluate the service quality and customer experience of low-pressure getaways in Hong Kong” is primarily evaluation research (also called evaluative research), not purely descriptive or exploratory research.

Why it’s evaluation research

Research Type	Main Purpose	Matches Your Theme?
Evaluation research	Assess the effectiveness, quality, or value of a program/service/experience; judge against criteria	✅ Yes — you’re explicitly evaluating service quality and customer experience
Descriptive research	Describe “what exists” — characteristics, current status, who/what/when/where/how	❌ Only partially — you’d need to describe features first, but your goal goes beyond description
Exploratory research	Gain initial insights when little is known; develop hypotheses rather than test them	❌ No — service quality and customer experience are well-studied concepts; you’re not exploring an unknown phenomenon

Evaluation research is a type of applied research designed to assess the effectiveness of social or economic programs/services. Since you’re judging service quality and customer experience (likely against standards or expectations), this is evaluative.

---

Yes — research type affects objectives and questions

The research type you choose directly shapes your research objectives and research questions:

Research Type	Typical Research Objective	Typical Research Question
Evaluation	Assess/judge the effectiveness/quality of X against criteria	“How effective is X?” / “What is the quality of X, and does it meet standards?”
Descriptive	Describe characteristics/status of X	“What are the characteristics of X?” / “What exists regarding X?”
Exploratory	Gain initial understanding; develop hypotheses	“What is happening with X?” / “What factors might influence X?”

For your theme as evaluation research, your objectives and questions would look like:

Research Objective Example:

·        To evaluate the service quality and customer experience of low-pressure getaways in Hong Kong against established service quality dimensions (e.g., reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, tangibles).

Research Question Example:

·        What is the level of service quality and customer experience at low-pressure getaways in Hong Kong, and do they meet expected standards?

·        Which service quality dimensions most strongly influence customer experience at these getaways?

If you framed it as descriptive research, your question would be:

·        “What are the current service quality characteristics and customer experience features of low-pressure getaways in Hong Kong?”

If exploratory:

·        “What factors influence service quality and customer experience at low-pressure getaways in Hong Kong, and what hypotheses can be developed for future study?”

---

Practical recommendation for your MBA dissertation

Since your explicit aim is to evaluate, you should:

1.    Anchor your dissertation in evaluation research

2.    Use established service quality frameworks (e.g., SERVQUAL) as evaluation criteria

3.    Formulate objectives/questions that assess performance against those criteria

4.    Consider including descriptive elements (e.g., describing current service features) as part of your evaluation process, but keep evaluation as your primary type

This alignment ensures your research design, methodology, and analysis match your stated purpose — a key requirement for MBA dissertation quality.

** A collection of lecture notes on the subject of research methods for MBA students, 2026 June

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

A note of theory-decomposing on Bas. C. van Fraassen's book of The Scientific Image.

A note of theory-decomposing on Bas. C. van Fraassen's book of The Scientific Image.

 

Highlight 8 main ideas of Bas. C. van Fraassen's book of The Scientific Image and describe 2 main claims of the book in terms of Toulmin's model of argument.

Here are 8 main ideas in Bas C. van Fraassen’s The Scientific Image, followed by 2 major claims recast in Toulmin’s model. The book develops constructive empiricism, arguing that science aims at empirical adequacy rather than truth about unobservables.

Eight main ideas

1.              Science should be interpreted as an empiricist alternative to both logical positivism and scientific realism.

2.              The central aim of science is empirical adequacy, meaning a theory should fit the observable phenomena.

3.              Accepting a scientific theory does not require believing it is literally true in every respect; belief is limited to its empirical fit.

4.              Van Fraassen insists on a literal interpretation of scientific language, rejecting the idea that scientific terms must be reduced to observational terms.

5.              Theory acceptance has an irreducibly pragmatic dimension, so accepting a theory involves more than just evidence alone.

6.              The theory/observation distinction matters because science is evaluated in relation to what is observable, not to hidden unobservables as such.

7.              Explanation is treated as a pragmatic feature of theories, not as extra evidence that licenses belief in unobservables.

8.              The book also develops a view of probability in physical theory, including classical and quantum cases, as part of its broader empiricist framework.

Two claims in Toulmin form

Claim 1: Science aims at empirical adequacy, not truth about unobservables.

·                  Claim: The proper aim of science is empirical adequacy.

·                  Grounds: Scientific theories are to be judged by whether they fit observable phenomena.

·                  Warrant: If a theory saves the observable data, then that is enough for scientific acceptance.

·                  Backing: Van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism rejects the realist demand that science must describe unobserved reality truly.

Claim 2: Explaining something does not by itself justify believing the theory is true.

·                  Claim: Explanatory power gives pragmatic value, not additional reason for belief.

·                  Grounds: A theory can explain and still go beyond what is needed for empirical adequacy.

·                  Warrant: A feature that improves usefulness or understanding is not automatically evidence of truth.

·                  Backing: Van Fraassen treats explanation and why-questions as pragmatic matters rather than epistemic proof of unobservable entities.

How this helps in an essay

If you are writing this for philosophy of science or research methodology, a useful framing is that van Fraassen shifts the standard of success from “truth” to “empirical adequacy,” then uses explanation as a pragmatic bonus rather than a truth-maker. That contrast is often the clearest way to show why his view differs from scientific realism.

 

With reference to these 8 main ideas of The Scientific Image, offer 4 practice advices to part-time MBA students doing 4-month dissertation projects.

Based on van Fraassen’s 8 main ideas from The Scientific Image, here are 4 concrete practice advices for part-time MBA students doing 4-month dissertation projects:

---

Advice 1: Define your dissertation’s aim as empirical adequacy, not theoretical truth

Van Fraassen idea: Science aims at empirical adequacy (fitting observable phenomena), not literal truth about unobservables

What to do:

·                  Frame your dissertation goal as: “produce a model/theory that fits the observable business data”, not “prove the true underlying mechanism.”

·                  Set success criteria around observable outcomes (e.g. sales figures, customer satisfaction scores, turnover rates) rather than unverifiable causal claims.

·                  Avoid overclaiming: write conclusions as “the model is empirically adequate for these data” rather than “this is the true explanation.”

Why it helps in 4 months: You stay focused on what you can actually measure and test, reducing scope creep and unrealistic expectations.

---

Advice 2: Treat theory acceptance as pragmatic, not purely evidential

Van Fraassen idea: Theory acceptance has an irreducibly pragmatic dimension; explanatory power is pragmatic, not extra evidence

What to do:

·                  When choosing between competing theories/models, explicitly note pragmatic criteria: simplicity, elegance, fit with your timeline, ease of data collection, usefulness for management decisions.

·                  In your dissertation, write a section like: “We accept Theory X not only because it fits the data, but because it is more tractable for managerial use and aligns with our research constraints.”

·                  Don’t treat a theory’s “explanatory appeal” as proof of truth; treat it as a useful feature for decision-making.

Why it helps: This justifies pragmatic choices in a short project and makes your argument more defensible under time pressure.

Advice 3: Keep a clear theory/observation boundary and avoid over-interpreting unobservables

Van Fraassen idea: Distinguish theory from observable phenomena; belief in a theory is limited to its empirical fit

What to do:

·                  In your methods, clearly separate:

·                                      Observable variables (what you measure directly)

·                                      Theoretical constructs (e.g. “organizational culture,” “strategic alignment”) treated as models, not proven realities.

·                  When discussing constructs, write: “We treat ‘organizational culture’ as a theoretical construct that helps organize the observable data; we do not claim to have proven its existence independently.”

·                  Avoid deep metaphysical claims about “the true nature” of constructs; keep claims within the observable domain.

Why it helps: This protects you from criticism about overclaiming and keeps your dissertation within the feasible scope of a 4-month project.

---

Advice 4: Use explanation as a pragmatic tool, not as proof of truth

Van Fraassen idea: Explanatory power is pragmatic; false theories can explain well; explanation does not license belief in unobservables

What to do:

·                  When you present explanations (e.g. “X explains Y”), frame them as:

·                                      “This model provides a contextually useful explanation for managers in this setting.”

·                                      Not: “This is the true causal explanation.”

·                  Acknowledge alternative explanations and note that your choice is partly pragmatic (e.g. data availability, managerial relevance).

·                  In your limitations, state: “Explanatory success does not guarantee truth; the model may be empirically adequate but not literally true about underlying mechanisms.”

Why it helps: This aligns with van Fraassen’s view and shows methodological sophistication, which is valuable in MBA dissertations.

 

Provide 3 academic references related to our discussion here, in Harvard reference format.

Here are 3 academic references in Harvard format:

van Fraassen, B.C. (1980) The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

van Fraassen, B.C. (2007) ‘The Scientific Image’, in Monton, B. (ed.) Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–10.

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2005) Theory and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 184–186, 234.

 

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