MBA dissertation report chapter 4 (Presentation of Research Findings) for the consulting-cum-academic dissertation project type (re: the agile literature review approach)
Chapter 4: Presentation of Research Findings
4.1 Chapter introduction
Provide a brief overview of the chapter's dual structure: academic presentation of empirical results tied to research issue-focused frameworks (e.g., statistical tests of theoretical mechanisms) alongside consulting-style diagnostics linked to management concerns-focused frameworks (e.g., practitioner patterns from HK banking). Restate the research objectives and questions, mapping them explicitly to dual frameworks and methods for the unified theme (e.g., resilience amid downsizing).
4.2 Presentation of findings from individual research methods
4.2.1 Quantitative findings (research issue-focused track)
Present results testing academic constructs (e.g., leadership-trust-resilience links via validated scales).
Research method 1: Employee survey (primary): Tables/charts/graphs (e.g., descriptives, correlations, regression outputs); initial analysis (e.g., Cronbach's alpha=0.85; β=0.42 for trust mediation, p<0.01).
Research method 2: Secondary quantitative data (e.g., HKMA benchmarks): Comparative stats (e.g., sector resilience scores vs. study sample).
4.2.2 Qualitative findings (management concerns-focused track)
Present practitioner insights via themes/categories/narratives with quotes.
Research method 3: Elite interviews (primary): Key themes (e.g., Theme 1: "Regulatory fear trumps leadership style" – "HKMA audits keep us up at night more than team morale" [Senior Manager]); illustrative quotes/codes.
Research method 4: Document analysis (secondary): Content themes (e.g., HKMA OR-2 gaps in third-party resilience).
*** Insert Table 4.1: Dual-track findings overview (quant results | qual themes by objective)
*** Insert Figure 4.1: Polaris Duo-Compass applied to raw findings (academic needle | practitioner needle bearings)
4.3 Integration of dual-framework findings
Apply bridging mechanisms to merge tracks under critical realism/pragmatism.
4.3.1 Triangulation across frameworks and methods
Joint display of quant (academic) and qual (practitioner) results per objective (e.g., matrix: survey correlations alongside interview demi-regularities).
4.3.2 Convergent, divergent, or complementary patterns
Convergent: Theory-tested trust effects align with managers' reported enablers.
Divergent: Academic leadership models undervalue HK regulatory mechanisms (explain via stratification).
Complementary: Practitioner gaps refine theoretical propositions (e.g., retroduction from events to powers).
4.3.3 Initial synthesis via Stratified Prism Lens
Visual convergence: Refraction diagram showing how dual inputs form unified theme image (e.g., mechanisms + events → resilience pathways).
*** Insert Figure 4.2: Stratified Prism Lens integration (spectral outputs → focal theme)
*** Insert Table 4.2: Joint display matrix (e.g., Objective 1 | Quant evidence | Qual evidence | Bridged insight)
4.4 Concise summary of key data points
Bullet key findings mapped to objectives/questions:
Academic contributions: Confirmed/rejected mechanisms (e.g., trust mediates 32% of leadership-resilience variance).
Consulting diagnostics: Prioritized concerns (e.g., 70% cite regulatory silos as resilience blocker).
Bridged insights: 3-5 actionable patterns serving the theme.
4.5 Chapter concluding remarks
Summarize how raw findings from dual tracks, integrated via bridging mechanisms, position the dissertation to deliver theory refinement (Ch.5 academic discussion) and client recommendations (Ch.6 consulting deliverables). Transition to analysis against frameworks."
_____
Dual-Track Findings Overview
Description: A structured table summarizing raw results from both academic (quantitative, theory-tested) and practitioner (qualitative, concern-driven) tracks side-by-side, mapped to research objectives for quick examiner reference.
Example:
|
Objective
|
Academic
Track (Survey)
|
Practitioner
Track (Interviews)
|
|
1: Trust
mediation
|
β=0.42,
p<0.01
|
Theme:
"Trust eroded by silos" (8/12 mentions)
|
|
This
enables pattern-spotting before integration.
|
|
|
Polaris Duo-Compass
Description: Figurative mechanism where dual concept definitions act as compass needles—academic (true north: theoretical gaps) and practitioner (magnetic south: HKMA realities)—triangulating direction for the unified theme.
Example: Survey scales (academic needle) confirm leadership-trust links; interview quotes (practitioner needle) reveal regulatory deviations, converging on "resilience navigation" course.
Stratified Prism Lens
Description: Metaphor for dual frameworks refracting the research theme: academic prism splits into real-domain mechanisms (causal powers), practitioner into actual events (observable disruptions), converging via retroduction into a full-spectrum focal image.
Example: Leadership theory (academic) + HK banking cases (practitioner) → integrated resilience model under critical realism.
Refraction Diagram
Description: Visual (Figure 4.2) showing dual inputs as light rays entering prisms, bending through strata (real/actual), and focusing at theme center—illustrates synthesis without text overload.
Example: Arrows from "trust survey stats" and "regulatory fears" refract to meet at "knowledge loss mitigation," with demi-regularity labels.
Joint Display Matrix
Description: Table (Table 4.2) aligning quant/qual evidence per objective, with bridged insight column for convergences (e.g., theory-practice alignment) or divergences (e.g., stratification explanations).
Example:
|
Objective
|
Quant
Evidence
|
Qual
Evidence
|
Bridged
Insight
|
|
Resilience
|
r=0.65
|
"HKMA
gaps"
|
Contingent
mechanisms
|
|
Promotes
transparency in mixed-methods integration.
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment