Participants at our round table included full and part time students, three academics, a South African, a Chinese, a Belorussian, and a Canadian. I don't know the other three nationalities. They all came with different research experiences and interests: human resource management, e-learning, ERP systems, Chinese investment, disconfirming communication, women managers and ICT.
My South African colleague strongly advised me that I needed to use the knowledge transfer literature, like Szulanski but I'm not so sure. Yes, knowledge gets transferred during a process of engagement, but knowledge isn't my focus. Does engagement alter the quality of the knowledge transfer? Probably yes, but my question is how people engage, not about the quality of the knowledge transfer. So that literature helps address a different question. And that was an interesting discussion.
The Canadian's research has a psychological element to it, so I'm not surprised she asked me about the affective factors of my research. (Pause and think, "'Affective', what does that mean?" Ah! emotion"). Yes, I'm aware of Saks work on employee engagement, requiring dedication, absorption and vigor, but I'm not looking at employee engagement with work, but at engaged relationships between people, which is a broader understanding of engagement, and has not been well researched. Nevertheless, I see the links and she and I could probably have useful further discussion.
She and I will be at the AOM conference in Canada in August so maybe we'll meet again.
Saks, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7): 600-619.
Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. 2004. When and How Trustworthiness Matters: Knowledge Transfer and the Moderating Effect of Causal Ambiguity, Organization Science, Vol. 15: 600-613: INFORMS: Institute for Operations Research.
Szulanski, G. & Jensen, R. J. 2006. Presumptive Adaptation and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27: 937-957: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. / Business.
Showing posts with label round table. Show all posts
Showing posts with label round table. Show all posts
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Friday, 7 May 2010
PhD day
Another round table day - my fourth, the third at which I have to present, and my last - next year I must be out of here! Some fourth year students didn't come, arguing they are writing up, which is more important than talking about their research with people who have no idea what they're on about.
And it was much nicer than previous year's experience. See 2009 and 2008.
By nicer, I mean the round table experience was more pleasant, less depressing, and I didn't need as much salt to keep my cool - (mixing metaphors). The academics were pleasantly constructive, but also I was lucky to have students at my table who were really interested, experienced and confident enough to ask questions and suggest literature. I think we had more of a discussion than previous years. I hope my fellow students thought so too. That sounds like a criticism of previous years' students, but I wonder if it was because this year I was at a table with people I hadn't met recently, or never met before. When you chat every week over coffee, you don't need to ask questions at a round-table session, but if you hardly ever meet, then you've more information to share.
There were more part-time students there than in previous years, which is good, because we don't get to meet them much. Their research is as interesting as the full-timers' but we don't know more than what is on their web pages, and if they don't write something there, you have only the topic title. See OUBS research students.
These get togethers allow sharing information. For example, a presenting student said something about using a survey, and someone else pointed out that the ESRC provides a survey bank of questionnaires, which presenting student hadn't known about.
I was somewhat startled that a part-time student said she knew my name and wanted to meet me. Her supervisor had told her to read my blog and what was the link? Wow! Thank you to her supervisor. Thank you to all my readers who share what I write. Some people find the blog from the OUBS research students web pages, which is where I've got a link. Those pages also have links that allow you to send private messages, if you want to contact OUBS research students.
"Take it with a pinch of salt,"advised supervisor #1.
And it was much nicer than previous year's experience. See 2009 and 2008.
By nicer, I mean the round table experience was more pleasant, less depressing, and I didn't need as much salt to keep my cool - (mixing metaphors). The academics were pleasantly constructive, but also I was lucky to have students at my table who were really interested, experienced and confident enough to ask questions and suggest literature. I think we had more of a discussion than previous years. I hope my fellow students thought so too. That sounds like a criticism of previous years' students, but I wonder if it was because this year I was at a table with people I hadn't met recently, or never met before. When you chat every week over coffee, you don't need to ask questions at a round-table session, but if you hardly ever meet, then you've more information to share.
There were more part-time students there than in previous years, which is good, because we don't get to meet them much. Their research is as interesting as the full-timers' but we don't know more than what is on their web pages, and if they don't write something there, you have only the topic title. See OUBS research students.
These get togethers allow sharing information. For example, a presenting student said something about using a survey, and someone else pointed out that the ESRC provides a survey bank of questionnaires, which presenting student hadn't known about.
I was somewhat startled that a part-time student said she knew my name and wanted to meet me. Her supervisor had told her to read my blog and what was the link? Wow! Thank you to her supervisor. Thank you to all my readers who share what I write. Some people find the blog from the OUBS research students web pages, which is where I've got a link. Those pages also have links that allow you to send private messages, if you want to contact OUBS research students.
Friday, 24 April 2009
OUBS research student day
We had a couple of useful seminars this morning. Sarah Robinson had lots of good advice on methodology and made me ready to rush off and start writing the methodology chapter now, but I've too much else to do, so I'll just have to keep my notes where I can find them.
In the afternoon we had the ten minute round table sessions, like last year, with four PhD students and an academic. The second academic, Emma Bell had to leave early, and was replaced by John Storey and Luciano Batista arrived too, so we had some useful voices. But it was still a bit depressing trying to explain what you're doing to people who aren't in your field and perhaps aren't very interested. John said I should take the 'engagement' out of my research question, but I don't know what to replace it with. Value isn't enough, and the NAO has already done heaps of work on value.
Nevertheless, it seemed a more constructive session than the session last year.
In the afternoon we had the ten minute round table sessions, like last year, with four PhD students and an academic. The second academic, Emma Bell had to leave early, and was replaced by John Storey and Luciano Batista arrived too, so we had some useful voices. But it was still a bit depressing trying to explain what you're doing to people who aren't in your field and perhaps aren't very interested. John said I should take the 'engagement' out of my research question, but I don't know what to replace it with. Value isn't enough, and the NAO has already done heaps of work on value.
Nevertheless, it seemed a more constructive session than the session last year.
Monday, 30 June 2008
OUBS research week
The OUBS is having a research week.
My table included 3 other PhD students, 2 MRes students (who looked as if it went way over their heads) and 3 academics. I thought the session was incredibly useful for the PhD students, because the academics had lots of advice on:
Another student's presentation elicited: "you've got no foundation". I thought that was a bit scary, specially if you're a third year student writing up your case studies.
A third student had changed her research question only two hours earlier having been in a session with a leader in her research area so there was some talk about whether she should change, and how the literature in her area was ripe for criticism.
I was last. Two PhD students had left. The third was unwell and the MRes students' eyelids were drooping. They bravely stayed for the end of me talking, but then discreetly left while the academics discussed my research. They suggested looking in depth at Bourdieu, and at the trust literature, and also to speak to academics in the field, such as Alan Cochrane who is here in the Social Policy unit, Geddes at Warwick, Joyce Liddle at Nottingham Trent.
I was glad of feedback on my proposed design because something was niggling: the number of case studies and use of questionnaires. Instead of 5-6 case studies with only six interviewees, use questionnaires first to get background, job titles for example, then interview lots more people but fewer case studies. That avoids the maths, which doesn't fit in philosophically and gives more depth to what I find from more people; it looks more at the relationships.
Now I've got actions or advice from:
"The week will provide an opportunity to focus on research activities and highlight the research being undertaken by colleagues in the School. The idea is to develop new University collaborations and kick off new research activities."It also involves the PhD students doing a ten-minute presentation (round-table) to other students and academics.
My table included 3 other PhD students, 2 MRes students (who looked as if it went way over their heads) and 3 academics. I thought the session was incredibly useful for the PhD students, because the academics had lots of advice on:
- literature
- methodology
- linking it all together philosophically
Another student's presentation elicited: "you've got no foundation". I thought that was a bit scary, specially if you're a third year student writing up your case studies.
A third student had changed her research question only two hours earlier having been in a session with a leader in her research area so there was some talk about whether she should change, and how the literature in her area was ripe for criticism.
I was last. Two PhD students had left. The third was unwell and the MRes students' eyelids were drooping. They bravely stayed for the end of me talking, but then discreetly left while the academics discussed my research. They suggested looking in depth at Bourdieu, and at the trust literature, and also to speak to academics in the field, such as Alan Cochrane who is here in the Social Policy unit, Geddes at Warwick, Joyce Liddle at Nottingham Trent.
I was glad of feedback on my proposed design because something was niggling: the number of case studies and use of questionnaires. Instead of 5-6 case studies with only six interviewees, use questionnaires first to get background, job titles for example, then interview lots more people but fewer case studies. That avoids the maths, which doesn't fit in philosophically and gives more depth to what I find from more people; it looks more at the relationships.
Now I've got actions or advice from:
- the round-table discussion
- supervisor feedback #1
- more supervisor feedback that came in after handed it in.
- the mini-viva I'll have in July
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Round table
We have to do a ten minute informal presentation to colleagues and OUBS academics. There was some hint that we should provide PowerPoint type stuff as a handout, but then I got advice from one of our third years who's using a single sheet to brief herself, so here's what my handout will be:
Supervisors
Liz Daniel, Richard Holti
Topic
Public sector management and use of external consultants for value
Research question
How can public sector organisations engage with consultants in order to contribute to an effective project?
Main theories
BOVENS, M. (2007) Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13, 447-468.
NAHAPIET, J. & GHOSHAL, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
SCHEIN, E. H. (1997) The concept of "client" from a process consultation perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 202.
Supervisors
Liz Daniel, Richard Holti
Topic
Public sector management and use of external consultants for value
Research question
How can public sector organisations engage with consultants in order to contribute to an effective project?
Main theories
- Schein’s types of client and levels of problem (Schein, 1997)
- Bovens typologies of accountability (Bovens, 2007)
- Social network theory in particular Nahapiet & Ghoshal’s idea that intellectual capital can be created through social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998)
- Constructionist
- Five-six case studies with six interviewees using Nahapiet & Ghoshal’s ideas as a framework
- Questionnaires
- Analysis – discourse analysis and social network analysis
- Contribution
- Academic: literature on engagement
- Practitioner: of interest to public sector in attempt to improve value, and of interest to consultants who work in the public sector
- Access to suitable organisations
- Philosophy of a constructionist approach when public sector measures value for money
- • Use of questionnaires to bring out relationships
BOVENS, M. (2007) Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13, 447-468.
NAHAPIET, J. & GHOSHAL, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
SCHEIN, E. H. (1997) The concept of "client" from a process consultation perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 202.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
