A note on inner dialogue based on the Socratic Method: for MBA students

A note on inner dialogue based on the Socratic Method: for MBA students

 

Highlight 5 main ideas of the Socratic method for guiding an MBA student-researcher's inner dialogue (thus critical thinking and intellectual learning) for doing his/ her dissertation project. Also suggest some straightforward steps on using the Socratic method in this respect.

 

The Socratic method can turn dissertation work into a disciplined inner dialogue: instead of accepting a topic, theory, method, or conclusion too quickly, the MBA student repeatedly questions its meaning, assumptions, evidence, implications, and alternatives. Its purpose is not to create doubt for its own sake, but to improve the clarity, logic, relevance, and defensibility of the research.

Five main ideas

1. Begin with intellectual humility

The researcher should distinguish between:

• What I know.
• What I think I know.
• What I have not yet investigated.
• What I may be assuming without sufficient evidence.

This is the “Socratic” recognition that one’s knowledge is limited and revisable. Intellectual humility does not mean lacking confidence; it means avoiding unjustified certainty and being willing to change an argument when better evidence appears.

Inner-dialogue example

“I believe digitalization improves management-accounting decision-making. What evidence supports this? Could digitalization also create new risks, costs, or forms of bias?”

This attitude is particularly useful when developing a dissertation topic, because an apparently obvious business problem may contain unexamined assumptions.

2. Clarify the question and key concepts

Socratic questioning first asks what a statement actually means. MBA students often use broad terms such as “performance,” “digital transformation,” “employee engagement,” “sustainability,” or “customer satisfaction” without defining them precisely.

Useful questions include:

• What exactly is the research problem?
• What do I mean by this key concept?
• Is the concept being used consistently?
• What is included and excluded?
• Can the concept be observed or measured?
• Is my research question sufficiently focused?

For example, “How does sustainability affect business performance?” is too broad. The researcher might clarify it as:

“How does sustainability reporting influence perceived organisational legitimacy among listed Hong Kong companies?”

Clarification helps convert an interesting general theme into a researchable dissertation problem.

3. Examine assumptions, reasons, and evidence

A dissertation argument normally contains a chain of reasoning:

Problem → concepts → theory → research questions → methods → evidence → conclusions.

The Socratic method tests every link in that chain. The researcher should ask:

• What assumptions am I making?
• Why should this relationship exist?
• What evidence supports the claim?
• Is the evidence current, relevant, and credible?
• Am I confusing correlation with causation?
• Does the literature genuinely support my interpretation?
• What evidence would challenge my argument?

These questions are central to critical thinking because Socratic questioning is designed to examine assumptions, reasons, information, inferences, and the quality of reasoning.

Example

Claim:

“Artificial intelligence improves management-accounting effectiveness.”

Socratic examination:

• What is meant by “artificial intelligence”?
• What is meant by “effectiveness”?
• Through what mechanism might AI improve effectiveness?
• Is the claim based on empirical evidence or technological optimism?
• Could implementation costs, employee resistance, data-quality problems, or ethical concerns weaken the relationship?
• What alternative explanation might account for improved performance?

4. Consider alternative viewpoints and explanations

A strong dissertation does not merely confirm the researcher’s preferred explanation. It considers competing interpretations, stakeholder perspectives, theories, and methodological choices.

The student can ask:

• How might another researcher interpret this issue?
• What would a sceptical manager argue?
• How might employees, customers, regulators, or investors view the problem differently?
• Is there a rival theory that explains the evidence?
• What alternative research design could produce a different result?
• Would the findings apply in another organisation, industry, or country?

This reduces confirmation bias. For example, if a student assumes that performance-based incentives motivate employees, alternative perspectives might suggest that they also produce gaming, stress, short-termism, or dysfunctional behaviour.

5. Trace implications, judgements, and conclusions

The final Socratic task is to ask what follows from the evidence and what does not follow. This prevents the student from making conclusions that are stronger than the research design permits.

Useful questions include:

• What does my evidence actually demonstrate?
• What does it merely suggest?
• What are the practical implications?
• What are the theoretical implications?
• Who might be affected by this conclusion?
• What are the limitations?
• Can I generalise from this sample or case?
• What further questions arise?

For instance, interview evidence from managers may show how they perceive a budgeting system, but it may not prove that the system objectively improves financial performance. The conclusion should therefore be appropriately bounded:

“The findings suggest that managers perceive the revised budgeting system as improving coordination,”

rather than:

“The revised budgeting system improves organisational performance.”

A practical questioning framework

The student can use the following six-stage sequence for each important dissertation decision:

Stage	Main question	Dissertation application
Clarification	What exactly do I mean?	Define the research problem and concepts
Assumptions	What am I taking for granted?	Identify hidden theoretical, contextual, or methodological assumptions
Evidence	How do I know?	Assess literature, data quality, and source credibility
Reasoning	How does one point lead to another?	Check the link between theory, questions, method, and conclusions
Alternatives	What else could explain this?	Consider rival theories, interpretations, and methods
Implications	What follows from this?	Develop justified findings, contributions, recommendations, and limitations

This structure reflects common Socratic categories such as clarification, probing assumptions, examining reasons and evidence, exploring implications, and considering alternative viewpoints.

Straightforward steps for dissertation use

Step 1: Write the current claim

At the beginning of a research session, write one sentence describing the idea under examination.

Examples:

• “Small firms adopt sustainability practices mainly because of customer pressure.”
• “Management accounting digitalization improves strategic decision-making.”
• “Housing-service quality influences residents’ trust in public institutions.”

Do not begin with a long paragraph. A single claim is easier to interrogate.

Step 2: Conduct a five-minute inner dialogue

Write questions and answers in two columns:

Socratic question	Researcher’s response
What do I mean by this claim?	I mean that…
What evidence supports it?	The literature suggests…
What assumption is present?	I assume that…
What might contradict it?	An alternative possibility is…
What follows if it is correct?	This would imply…

The student should answer honestly rather than trying to make the argument look stronger than it is.

Step 3: Mark unsupported statements

Use three labels:

• E: supported by evidence.
• A: based on an assumption.
• U: uncertain or requiring further investigation.

For example:

“Managers resist AI because they fear job displacement.” A/U

This statement may be plausible, but it requires suitable empirical evidence rather than being treated as an established fact.

Step 4: Apply the method to the research question

Ask:

1.    Is the question clear?

2.    Is it focused enough for the time and resources available?

3.    Does it identify a population, context, phenomenon, or relationship?

4.    Can it be answered with accessible data?

5.    Does it invite investigation rather than a simple yes/no answer?

6.    Is it aligned with the research objectives?

Weak question

“Does technology affect business?”

More focused question

“How do small Hong Kong retailers perceive the effects of cloud-based accounting systems on management decision-making?”

The second question identifies a context, participants, phenomenon, and likely area of inquiry.

Step 5: Interrogate each major source

For every important journal article, ask:

• What problem does the article address?
• What theory does it use?
• What assumptions does the theory contain?
• What research design was used?
• Is the evidence appropriate for the claim?
• What are the study’s limitations?
• How does it agree or disagree with other studies?
• How does it help my dissertation?

This converts literature review from summary into evaluation. Instead of writing “Author A found X and Author B found Y,” the student can explain why the studies differ and what unresolved issue remains.

Step 6: Challenge the methodology before collecting data

Before selecting a method, ask:

• Why is this method appropriate for my research question?
• What kind of knowledge can it produce?
• What will it fail to capture?
• Why interviews rather than a questionnaire, or vice versa?
• How will sampling affect the findings?
• What forms of bias may arise?
• How will validity, reliability, credibility, or triangulation be addressed?

For example, if the purpose is to understand how managers interpret a new performance-measurement system, interviews may be appropriate for exploring meanings and experiences. However, interviews alone may not establish the system’s objective effect on financial performance.

Step 7: Use a “critical friend”

The student can ask a supervisor, colleague, or classmate to adopt a sceptical but constructive role. The critical friend should ask:

• What is the central argument?
• What is the strongest evidence?
• What is the weakest link?
• What alternative explanation have you ignored?
• Is the conclusion stronger than the data justify?

The purpose is not to win an argument but to discover weaknesses before assessment or publication.

Step 8: Conduct a conclusion audit

Before finalising each chapter, ask:

• Have I answered the research question?
• Does every major claim have adequate support?
• Have I distinguished evidence from interpretation?
• Have I acknowledged contradictory findings?
• Have I avoided overgeneralisation?
• Are my recommendations connected to the findings?
• Have I stated the limitations honestly?

This final audit helps maintain alignment between the research problem, objectives, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusion.

Example: applying it to a dissertation claim

Suppose the student proposes:

“Digital management-accounting systems improve strategic decision-making in SMEs.”

A Socratic dialogue might proceed as follows:

1.    Clarification: What counts as a digital management-accounting system?

2.    Clarification: What is strategic decision-making, and how will it be observed?

3.    Assumption: Why assume that more timely information automatically produces better decisions?

4.    Evidence: What empirical studies support this relationship?

5.    Alternative: Could managerial expertise, organisational culture, or financial resources explain the improvement instead?

6.    Method: Can interviews reveal decision-making outcomes, or is quantitative performance evidence also required?

7.    Implication: If the system helps decision-making, under what organisational conditions does it do so?

8.    Limitation: Can findings from a small number of SMEs be generalised to larger firms?

The result may be a more defensible question:

“How and under what organisational conditions do digital management-accounting systems support strategic decision-making in Hong Kong SMEs?”

Important cautions

The Socratic method should be disciplined questioning, not endless doubt. The student should stop questioning when the claim is sufficiently clear, supported, logically connected to the evidence, and appropriately limited.

It should also be constructive rather than aggressive. The aim is to improve reasoning, not to embarrass oneself or others. Questions should be sequenced and balanced so that they promote reflection rather than overwhelm the researcher.

A useful routine is therefore:

Claim → clarify → expose assumptions → test evidence → consider alternatives → assess implications → revise.

Used consistently, this routine helps an MBA student develop not only a stronger dissertation but also a more independent scholarly identity: someone who can explain what they believe, why they believe it, how they know it, and where the limits of that knowledge lie.