MBA dissertation report chapter 3 for the consulting-cum-academic dissertation project type

MBA dissertation report chapter 3 (Research Methodology) for the consulting-cum-academic dissertation project type (re: the agile literature review approach)

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Outline the dual orientation of the methodology: academically rigorous (theory-testing via research issue-focused frameworks) and consulting-practical (actionable diagnostics via management concerns-focused frameworks), justified under critical realism/pragmatism for the unified HK banking theme (e.g., resilience amid downsizing). Preview how methods operationalize dual concepts/frameworks, ensuring triangulation for robust academic and practitioner insights.

​

3.2 Description of the overall research methodology and specific research methods

3.2.1 Overall research design elements

• Research type: Mixed-methods (exploratory-sequential for practitioner concerns → confirmatory-extensive for academic mechanisms), balancing consulting diagnostics with academic validation.

• Research philosophy: Critical realism (stratified ontology bridges real mechanisms and actual events) or pragmatism (what works for dual contributions).

• Research approach: Mixed methods (qual-dominant for depth, quant for breadth).

• Reasoning approaches: Retroduction (CR: from events to mechanisms) + abduction/induction (practitioner patterns) + deduction (theory-testing).
  Justify how this design accommodates dual frameworks without overload in a part-time MBA project.
  ​

3.2.2 Individual research methods overview

Summarize 2-3 primary methods (e.g., elite interviews, surveys) and 1-2 secondary (e.g., HKMA documents, sector reports), mapped to frameworks: qual methods probe management concerns (practitioner framework), quant test research issues (academic framework).

​

3.2.3 Primary and secondary research methods

3.2.3.1 Primary research method 1: Elite interviews (management concerns-focused)

• Data gathering: 10-15 semi-structured interviews (45-60 mins) with HK bank seniors/HR, using practitioner framework probes (e.g., "How do regulatory pressures shape resilience perceptions?"). Purposive sampling for diversity.

• Data analysis: Thematic analysis (NVivo) for patterns, member-checking for validity; retroduction to surface demi-regularities linking to academic mechanisms.

3.2.3.2 Primary research method 2: Employee survey (research issue-focused)

• Data gathering: Online survey (n=100-150 bank staff) with validated scales from academic framework (e.g., trust/leadership/resilience measures); stratified sampling.

• Data analysis: Descriptive stats, regression/SEM (SPSS) to test theoretical links; reliability via Cronbach's alpha.

3.2.3.3 Secondary research method 1: Document analysis (bridging)

• Data gathering: HKMA guidelines, annual reports, media archives on banking disruptions.

• Data analysis: Content analysis for alignment with dual frameworks; triangulation matrix.
  *** Insert Figure 3.1: Dual literature frameworks mind map linked to research methods (e.g., practitioner branch → interviews, academic branch → survey)
  *** Insert Figure 3.2: Research tasks flowchart (e.g., Start-to-Start: lit review → method design; Finish-to-Start: interviews → survey probes; sequential phases with feedback loops for integration)

3.3 Evaluation of research method design quality and ethics

3.3.1 Design quality criteria

• Validity/reliability: Framework-specific (e.g., scale validation for academic track, transferability for practitioner); triangulation across methods/frameworks.

• Rigor: Detailed audit trail, pilot testing; addresses dual threats (e.g., construct contamination).

• Strengths/weaknesses: Mixed design complements (breadth+depth) but risks complexity—mitigated by phased execution.
  ​

• Limitations: Part-time scope limits sample size; positionality reflexivity noted.

3.3.2 Research ethics

• Informed consent, anonymity (sensitive banking data), confidentiality (NDA considerations).

• Dual-role ethics: Balance academic integrity with consulting non-disclosure; IRREC approval process.

• Reflexivity on power dynamics in elite access.
  ​

3.4 Chapter concluding remarks

Reiterate how the methodology operationalizes the Polaris Duo-Compass (concepts) and Stratified Prism Lens (frameworks) for the unified theme, ensuring academic contributions (mechanism insights) and consulting deliverables (diagnostics/recommendations). Transition to Chapter 4 findings presentation."