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.