Positioning Research

The first two sections of this chapter contrasted content-based research with process-based research. The aim of the third section is to enable researchers to measure the consequences of their choices and clearly position their research. We encourage researchers to be aware that the two approaches, one based on content and one on process, are mutually enriching, and that they both con­tribute to the study of the same object.

1. Combining Content and Process

The boundary between process and content is often difficult to pinpoint, as the two types of analysis complement each other. It is often just as difficult to study content without taking into account its structuring over time as to study a process without knowing its composition.

1.1. How processes can enrich content-based research

Processes can be integrated into descriptive, content-based analysis in two ways. On the one hand, the configuration hinges on a certain number of dimensions that include in most cases some processes. On the other hand, approaches that use decomposition can reveal the processes underlying the object being studied, without going into detail about the different stages involved.

We can, for example, define an organizational configuration according to the strategies it adopts, its company structures or the monitoring and planning processes it employs. We could also include here the variable ‘the strategy for­mulation process’. This process can be centralized to a varying degree. When we describe a process of strategy formulation as ‘very centralized’, we use the process without reference to the sequence of stages that make it up. The researcher refers to existing works that have already categorized the process. As the example below illustrates, the process can then be considered as a ‘cate­gory of concepts’ (Van de Ven, 1992).

Example: How processes can enrich descriptive content-based research

The example provided by Bartlett and Goshal (1989) is explicit on this subject. The authors present a new organizational configuration for transnational companies that have a presence in several countries. They construct a model of the ideal trans­national organization using organizational innovations they have observed during studies conducted in several companies. Their model of the transnational organi­zation does not really exist, but is inspired by the authors’ empirical work. It is based on certain managerial innovations, including new ways of managing coordination or innovation processes. For example, the authors propose additions to classic global and local innovation processes. They suggest systematically spreading local innova­tions, and introducing a coordinated process of global innovation, combining the efforts of the most competent subsidiaries. The logic of these processes is described, but not their dynamics. Although Bartlett and Goshal refer to process categories, they do not describe them in detail.

Processes enrich explicative, content-based research in the same way. Pro­cesses can first be used – and therefore operationalized – as constructs, and measured as fixed entities (variables), whose attributes can range from low to high on numerical scales. For example, when Govindarajan (1988) studies the appropriateness of a decision-making process in particular environmental con­ditions, the process itself is not studied. It is simply taken into account through a certain number of proxy variables that enable researchers to define the degree of centralization of decision-making.

Explicative content-based research can also use processes to explain the results it produces. Often, in fact, the data collected is not able to show the existence of causality links, but rather the simultaneous presence of two or more phenomena. So, in a hypothetico-deductive model, it is the formulation of the hypothesis that raises the correlation to the level of a causality link. Proving the hypothesis often involves processual logic. The process is integrated as an element that explains the causal relationship between independent and dependent variables (Van de Ven, 1992). This approach is illustrated by the following example.

Example: Using process to prove a causal relationship

We can refer back to Govindarajan’s (1988) study of the central mechanisms govern­ing the relations between general management and the operational units of diverse groups. Govindarajan uses a process-based explanation to prove that decentraliza­tion has a positive influence on the performance of a unit facing environmental uncertainty. In fact, a centralized company faced with environmental uncertainty sees its centralizing process paralyzed by the need to deal with the many exceptions that arise in subunits which do not have decision-making power. Very quickly, management is no longer able to arbitrate effectively between the subunits. The weak performance of companies that adopt centralized structures in an uncertain environment can be explained by a process of progressive paralysis in decision­making. Although Govindarajan provides a process-based explanation of the result, the process is simply mentioned and not studied directly.

1.2. How content enriches process-based research

Following the evolution of this variable involves decomposing it into elements such as actors (internal and external), methods of action and elements sup­porting action. This decomposition corresponds to a reflection on content. Before conducting a process-based study, one therefore needs to use content- based research to discover the categories that constitute a process. For example, Hickson et al. (1986) concentrated on identifying the different variables that make up a decision-making process (these variables relate to the progression of the process, and any ruptures in this progression, to the actors and to the stakes of the decision). They were able to identify and categorize several types of decision-making processes in terms of the state of the variables they are com­posed of.

Content also enriches our knowledge of a process in another way. Processual analysis can consist of studying the way an object develops over time between a state (1) and a state (2). It is important for researchers to have a precise under­standing of both states (1) and (2) so the progression between them can be established. Content-based research enables us to obtain precise knowledge about these states.

2. Research Strategy: Choosing to Research a Process, Content or Both?

Beyond their mutual enrichment, process-based and content-based research are linked in another way. Together they enable researchers to grasp the reality of an object. The position researchers choose to adopt depends both on their knowledge of the object being studied and the nature of the object.

2.1. Choosing between process and content

As Table 5.1 illustrates, the choice between research into process and research into content is not based on the object that is being studied. Researchers need to combine the two approaches if they are to improve their knowledge about a particular object. Let us return to the metaphor of cinema and photography. Cinema is but a succession of fixed images. However, it is precisely this suc­cession of fixed images which enables us to visualize the evolution over time of the object being studied. Weick (1979) expresses a similar idea when he says that the organizational process and the consequences of this process are in real­ity inseparable – they are interchangeable notions. Weick argues that the same things are involved, and that we can call them either organization or an organi­zational process, according to the length of time we spend observing them. Watching a collectivity for a longer period creates the impression that the organi­zation process is under way. Looking at it for shorter periods will suggest that an organization exists (Weick, 1979: 16).

In making these choices, researchers must take into account not only their personal aspirations and the constraints linked to the data available, but also how much is known about the object they intend to study. Knowing the current state of play in relation to a particular object allows a researcher to choose an approach that enriches existing knowledge. If an object has already been studied closely from the angle of its content, researchers may need to supplement their knowledge with process-based research (and vice versa). For example, the notion of a life cycle naturally calls for processual research centered on reveal­ing the successive stages that make up the life cycle. However, once the major phases have been identified and corroborated by several convergent research projects, work can then be done on the content of each of these phases to increase our understanding of the subject. When this work has been carried out, fresh processual research is then called for, which can help researchers to better understand the way the phases link up. Researchers must therefore be capable of choosing between a content- or process-based position so as to shed new light on the subject with a view to building up our knowledge.

Establishing cumulative knowledge is very much dependent on new prac­tices emerging within organizations. These practices raise new questions and alter research needs, as much for content-based research as for process-based work. It is clearly very important for researchers to consider the type of research they have chosen. They could, for example, pose the following question: ‘Are the results of my research relevant to the practices which will be in operation when they are published?’

2.2. Towards a mixed approach?

Given that the two approaches overlap, certain works seek to integrate content- and process-based research (Jauch, 1983; Jemison, 1981). Researchers who advocate content-based study will tend to pose questions in terms of dynam­ics. In fact, the way of tackling one of the main questions in strategic manage­ment – ‘why certain firms succeed while others fail?’ – has evolved to the point that it now tends to incorporate a processual and dynamic dimension (Porter, 1991). Certainly, a firm’s success depends partly on striking a balance between strategic and environmental choices, but we must be able to assess this balance over time, because it is constructed over time. Conversely, the school of process-based study attaches great importance to understanding the ‘content’ of the phenomena being studied (Itami and Numagami, 1992). Process-based analysis should not be considered as incompatible with content-based analysis, since all decision taken within an organization, and all organizational systems, are but the result of a succession of states, stages and dynamics. The ‘why’ of strategic choices, the ‘what’ of a strategic decision and the ‘how’ of such deci­sions complement each other (Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992).

The following discussion of Honda’s success illustrates the necessity of combining the two approaches if we wish to understand certain management phenomena. When analyzing the ‘Honda case’, it seems a risky research stra­tegy to choose to focus exclusively on either process or content. Such an approach may permit researchers to concentrate their efforts, but they risk grasping only a part of the phenomenon being studied.

Source: Thietart Raymond-Alain et al. (2001), Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1 edition.