A rapid test (RT) of quality of reasoning (QOR) in MBA dissertation reports using the agile literature review approach

A rapid test (RT) of quality of reasoning (QOR) in MBA dissertation reports using the agile literature review approach

Having following all the practice notes on how to structure and present the content of the MBA dissertation reports that employ the agile literature review approach, some students remain worried about the content of their reports, notably on the quality of reasoning of the report. This topic of quality of reasoning (QOR) has to a large extent been addressed by the "chain of evidence" guidelines. Here, I offer a rapid test (RT) that students can utilize to assess their reports' quality of reasoning (QOR):

Step 1: select a high-level research task (also known as the research objective) such as:

"To evaluate the Information Technology management (ITM) competence of ABC Ltd", and answer the following question:

What is your evaluation viewpoint (general or specific) on the ITM competence of ABC Ltd?

Now, your answer [the evaluation viewpoint] could be: The ITM competence of ABC Ltd is inadequate to cope with the existing external challenges facing it.

Step 2: could you support your evaluation viewpoint with a specific discussion finding in your dissertation report, chapter 5?

Your answer [based on a specific discussion finding in Chapter 5] could be: our existing IT Department staff do not have adequate technical and managerial knowledge to enhance the existing e-commerce infrastructure of our company.

Step 3: could you further support your discussion finding by referring to one or more research findings [re: Chapter 4 your dissertation report] as well as the corresponding specific research method [re: Chapter 4] and analysis method/ theories [re: Chapter 5] used.

Your answer [on research findings/ research methods/ theories used] could be: this discussion finding is based on the research findings about the non-IT department heads' opinions from the interview research [re: Interview research method (research method 2: research finding 7) as interpreted by the XYZ theory [academic idea 3.4]. This interview research gathered and evaluate non-ITM department heads' evaluation viewpoints on the ITM competence of ABC Ltd.

A recap of the "quality of reasoning" rapid test steps:

1. Examine a specific high-level research task

2. Examine a specific discussion finding as related to 1.

3. Examine one or more research findings and the corresponding research methods and theories involved in generating the discussion finding (2 above).

The rapid test (RT) judgement criteria

If the line of reasoning (QOR) is clear, relevant and focused [and I am not talking about whether the line of reasoning is insightful or sophisticated], then the rapid test on quality of reasoning (QOR) is passed.

Indications of QOR failure of the RT:

1. The discussion finding [re: chapter 5] cannot be related to the high-level research task.

2. The research finding [re: chapter 4] (and the corresponding research method) cannot be related to the discussion finding (point 1 above).

3. The academic idea appears not relevant to serve the high-level research task under the rapid test exercise.

One common problem with the QOR is that the discussion finding is related to a management concern associated with zone 3b (solutions-related) while the high-level research task being reviewed belongs to zone 2 (organizational capabilities). [a case of incorrect location of analysis: zone considered in the wrong place]

A reminder: the cost of quality [cost of failure of QOR as detected by the QOR RT] is much higher than the cost of quality [quality prevention defects in the chain of evidence design]. Correcting QOR defects when the deadline of dissertation report submission is near can be very stressful, to say the least.

Reference

Chain of evidence design and execution