Lecture note on how to handle the evolutionary nature of an MBA dissertation project

Lecture note on how to handle the evolutionary nature of an MBA dissertation project

 

In the context of doing a part-time MBA dissertation project, the student is reminded that the project is evolutionary in nature, especially if it involves some qualitative research effort. Could you offer some advices on the student could deal with the following sources of new ideas and new empirical observations:

1. Unexpected but relevant views uncovered from a semi-structured interview

2. Some additional suggestions from the dissertation project supervisor on using (1) an additional theory in the project investigation and (2) an additional research method (e.g. an interview with an interviewee to gain some additional findings for research method triangulation purpose.

3. picking some new ideas, new perspective, or new empirical findings from the student's own literature review exercise

4. Noticing that there the business context of the dissertation project experiences a sudden material change, e.g. a serious earthquake in a supplier country with serious disruption to the supply chain of the company under investigation.

An MBA dissertation can legitimately evolve, particularly when it uses semi-structured interviews or a case-study design. However, “evolutionary” should mean a controlled, documented refinement of the study—not an uncontrolled expansion of its research questions, theory, sample, and methods. Qualitative researchers commonly revise interview questions and analytical focus as emerging findings reveal what is important, provided that the changes remain aligned with the research purpose and are transparently reported.utsc.utoronto

A guiding decision process

Whenever a new idea or observation appears, record it in a research decision log and ask:

1.    What exactly is new?
Is it a participant’s unexpected statement, a new theory, a new data source, a literature insight, or a change in the real-world case?

2.    How relevant is it to the research question?
Does it explain, qualify, challenge, or extend the existing research question—or is it merely interesting?

3.    What would have to change?
Consider the conceptual framework, interview guide, sample, research method, ethics documentation, analysis plan, timetable, and dissertation length.

4.    What is the evidential status?
Distinguish clearly between:

o   an idea or proposition;

o   a single participant’s perception;

o   a recurring theme;

o   corroborated empirical evidence; and

o   a contextual event requiring further investigation.

5.    Should it be incorporated, tested, or parked?
Not every useful idea must become a new research objective. Some can be discussed as a limitation, rival explanation, contextual factor, or recommendation for future research.

A useful rule is:

Follow the data, but protect the study’s identity.

Any change should be assessed against the original aim, research questions, research philosophy, unit of analysis, and feasibility.

1. Unexpected views from an interview

An unexpected view should initially be treated as an analytic lead, not immediately as a new finding or a reason to redesign the dissertation.

Recommended procedure

• Preserve the original transcript, coding, and interview context.
• Record the observation in a reflexive memo, including:
• what was said;
• why it was unexpected;
• which research question it might relate to;
• whether it contradicts or extends the existing framework;
• possible alternative explanations.
• Code it provisionally using an “unexpected issue,” “emergent theme,” or similar label.
• Re-examine the entire transcript for related passages.
• Compare it with earlier interviews, documents, company reports, or other evidence.
• If it is relevant, add a small number of follow-up questions to later interviews, subject to supervisor and ethics requirements.
• Look deliberately for negative cases—evidence that contradicts the emerging interpretation rather than only evidence that confirms it. Negative-case analysis is one recognised strategy for strengthening qualitative interpretations.journals.sagepub

For example, suppose the dissertation examines how a company manages supplier relationships, and an interviewee unexpectedly argues that “trust” is less important than the supplier’s ability to absorb sudden cost increases. The student should not immediately replace the original research question. Instead, the student could investigate whether this is:

• a different understanding of trust;
• a finding specific to that interviewee’s role;
• a response to recent inflation or supply-chain pressure;
• evidence that financial resilience is a competing explanatory factor; or
• a theme appearing across several participants.

How to write it up

There are three reasonable outcomes:

Evidential position	Treatment in the dissertation
One isolated but relevant comment	Report as an illustrative or divergent view, without overgeneralising
Repeated or corroborated theme	Develop it as an emergent finding and explain how the analysis evolved
Interesting but weakly connected idea	Place it in a reflexive note, limitation, or suggestions for future research

The student should not conceal that the idea emerged during fieldwork. A transparent account might state:

“Although the initial framework emphasised relational trust, early interview evidence drew attention to supplier financial resilience. Subsequent interviews therefore included a limited number of probing questions on this issue. The theme was retained as a complementary, rather than replacement, explanation.”

This demonstrates methodological reflexivity. Reflexivity involves examining how the researcher’s assumptions, the research relationship, and the evolving context influence the research process.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih

2. Supervisor suggests another theory and interview

The supervisor’s suggestions should be evaluated as proposed design changes, not automatically implemented.

Adding another theory

The student should first ask what role the additional theory would play:

• Complementary: It explains a dimension that the original theory does not cover.
• Competing: It offers a rival explanation of the same phenomenon.
• Sensitising: It provides concepts that help the student notice issues in the data, without becoming a full second theoretical framework.
• Contextual: It explains the industry, institutional, cultural, or environmental setting.

The student should avoid adding a theory merely to make the literature review appear more extensive. Two theories are justified only if the relationship between them is conceptually clear. The dissertation should explain:

1.    what each theory explains;

2.    where their concepts overlap or differ;

3.    whether they are integrated, compared, or applied sequentially;

4.    which theory informs which research question; and

5.    how the theories affect coding and interpretation.

The additional theory might therefore become:

• a second full analytical lens;
• a sub-framework for one research question;
• a rival explanation considered in the discussion; or
• a brief interpretive concept rather than a new central theory.

This is an example of theoretical triangulation, in which the same evidence is examined through more than one theoretical perspective. Triangulation can involve data sources, researchers, theories, or methods; its value is not simply to produce agreement but also to reveal differences and alternative interpretations.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih

Adding another interview

An additional interview can strengthen the project, but its purpose must be explicit. It could provide:

• a different organisational role;
• a different level of seniority;
• a supplier, customer, regulator, or external expert perspective;
• a contrasting case;
• evidence to test an emerging theme; or
• data for methodological or source triangulation.

The student should define the sampling logic rather than describe the interview as “additional information.” For example:

“A procurement manager was added through purposive sampling because the initial participants mainly represented operations and senior management. The additional interview was intended to examine whether the emerging account of supplier resilience was shared by the function responsible for supplier selection.”

The interview should not be conducted solely to create the appearance of triangulation. Triangulation is strongest when the additional source has a meaningful relationship to the research question and offers a genuinely different vantage point. In case studies, multiple sources of evidence are normally expected to contribute to a convergent or analytically coherent account.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

Practical safeguards

Before proceeding, the student should obtain agreement on:

• the revised or additional research question;
• the precise purpose of the new theory or interview;
• the participant-selection rationale;
• the revised interview guide;
• consent, confidentiality, and data-management arrangements;
• the effect on the timetable;
• whether the new material will be analysed fully or used only as supplementary evidence.

If the dissertation has formal ethics approval, changing interview questions, adding participants, changing the method, or adding a new participant group may require an amendment before implementation. Universities commonly require changes to approved procedures or instruments to be submitted for ethics review in advance. The student should therefore check the institution’s rules rather than assume that supervisor approval alone is sufficient.research.charlotte

3. New ideas from the literature review

A literature review is not finished simply because the student has read the planned sources. New literature may reveal an overlooked mechanism, boundary condition, concept, debate, or alternative explanation.

The student should use a relevance-and-feasibility test:

• Does the idea directly illuminate the research problem?
• Does it alter the conceptual framework or merely enrich background discussion?
• Is it consistent with the research philosophy and methodology?
• Can it be investigated with the existing data?
• If new data are needed, can that be collected within the time and ethical constraints?
• Would adding it make the dissertation more coherent or merely more complicated?

Four possible treatments

1.    Integrate it into the conceptual framework.
Use this when the idea changes how the core phenomenon is understood.

2.    Use it as an alternative explanation.
This is appropriate when the existing empirical material can be re-examined through the new perspective.

3.    Use it to refine the interview guide or coding framework.
This is suitable when limited additional data collection can test the idea.

4.    Park it for future research.
This is preferable when the idea is promising but would require a new population, method, or research project.

A useful distinction is between retrospective analysis and prospective data collection:

• If the new theory is applied only to already collected transcripts, explain that it is an additional analytical lens applied retrospectively.
• If the new concept changes the questions asked of later participants, identify the point at which the interview guide changed and explain why.
• Do not imply that all participants were asked the same questions if they were not.

The audit trail should record decisions about sampling, interview materials, coding, emerging findings, and changes to the research design. This allows the reader to understand how the student moved from raw data to conclusions.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

4. Sudden material change in the business context

A major external event—such as an earthquake disrupting a supplier country—should be treated as a possible contextual turning point, not automatically inserted into the dissertation as if it had always been part of the research design.

The student should first establish:

• the date and scale of the event;
• which suppliers, locations, products, or processes were affected;
• whether the company actually experienced disruption;
• how the company responded;
• whether the event affects the original research question;
• whether it changes participant experiences or merely provides background context;
• whether the dissertation is studying a stable process or organisational adaptation over time.

Four possible responses

Situation	Appropriate response
Event is unrelated to the research question	Mention briefly as a boundary condition, if relevant
Event affects the case but not the core question	Add it to the case context and discuss its implications
Event reveals a new mechanism central to the question	Treat it as an emergent theme or critical incident
Event changes the case so substantially that the original question no longer fits	Renegotiate the research question, scope, and possibly case definition with the supervisor

The event may provide an opportunity for a critical-incident analysis or a before-and-after comparison. For example, if the original study investigates supply-chain resilience, the earthquake may offer a natural opportunity to examine how resilience is enacted under extreme disruption. But the student must avoid hindsight bias: the earthquake occurred during the study, and the original research design may not have been designed to capture its effects.

Possible additional evidence could include:

• interviews with procurement or logistics staff;
• company announcements and internal documents, where accessible;
• supplier communications;
• delivery-time or inventory records;
• public reports about the disruption;
• a timeline of decisions before, during, and after the event.

The student should also distinguish between:

• the event itself;
• the organisation’s interpretation of the event;
• the organisation’s actual response; and
• the consequences inferred by the researcher.

If new interviews or sensitive business data are required, the student should revisit consent, confidentiality, access permissions, and ethics approval. A substantial change in the study’s aims, participant group, design, or procedures may require a formal amendment or, in some cases, a new ethics application.research.ucalgary

A practical change-control template

The student could maintain a table like this throughout the project:

Field	Question to record
Date and source	When did the idea or observation arise, and from whom?
New issue	What precisely has emerged?
Relevance	Which research question or objective does it affect?
Evidential basis	One comment, repeated theme, document, event, or literature argument?
Proposed action	Integrate, test, contextualise, or defer?
Design implications	Theory, sample, method, interview guide, analysis, or ethics?
Supervisor decision	What was agreed, and when?
Final treatment	Where will it appear in the dissertation?

This record can later support the methodology chapter, particularly a subsection on research design evolution, reflexivity, and limitations.

Recommended overall principle

For a part-time MBA dissertation, the safest approach is bounded evolution:

• Keep the original research question as the anchor.
• Treat new material first as an emerging issue requiring evaluation.
• Seek corroboration before elevating a single observation into a major finding.
• Use additional theory to sharpen explanation, not to multiply concepts.
• Use additional interviews only when their sampling and triangulation purpose is clear.
• Treat major external events as contextual or critical incidents unless they genuinely change the phenomenon being studied.
• Obtain supervisor approval and, where necessary, ethics approval before making procedural changes.
• Maintain an audit trail and report the evolution honestly.

The final dissertation does not need to pretend that the project was perfectly linear. A strong dissertation shows that the student was responsive to the evidence while remaining disciplined about scope, validity, ethics, and feasibility.

** also study the related notes on the project life cycle of dissertation projects; and the spiral model of dissertation project.

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