Research collaborations

Over the past month I have been studying literature concerned with the study of research collaborations. The result of this review can be found in my working paper by Sprouts. I have written this review, because I wished to be better able to position my dissertation topic with regard to existing result. I have identified following research areas connected to the study of research collaborations:

• Terminology
• Research methods
• Development
• Incentives
• Explanation
• Potentials of ICT

My own thesis is concerned with the support of the initiation of research collaborations with ICT. I will thus be working in the area “Potentials of ICT”. Here, I will be building particularly on existing work about awareness. However, I will be able to draw useful lessons also also from literature concerned with the explanation of research collaborations (here, I was able to anchor my work in relation to the collaboration process). Existing papers on incentives help me to justify some of my assumptions. And of course, my work will be grounded on existing discussion on terminology.

The review of the literature concerned with research collaborations was very interesting for me. Nevertheless, it was not until I summarized it in the working paper, that I gained clarity about the different fields and my own position. I made the resulting paper publicly available via Sprout, hoping it will offer motivation and save some literature work to others interested in this topic.

Surveys

The aim of a survey is to collect the same data about members of a particular population (Aldridge & Levine, 2001). Aldridge and Levine (2001) see any means of data collection as a survey. However, other authors (Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 288; McKenna, Hasson, & Keeney, 2006, pp. 260-262) limit the term to data gathered by asking the participants questions. Blumberg, Cooper, and Schindler (2008, pp. 277-280) and Bordens and Abbott (2007, p. 252) make a very clear distinction between the survey method, which uses direct communication with the research sub jects, and the observation without any intervention of the researcher. The survey research is well established method (McKenna et al., 2006, p. 261), used both in science as well as in the practice. It can be used to collect attributes, behaviour, opinions, believes, preferences or attitudes of a group of people (Aldridge & Levine, 2001, p. 5). A survey can be descriptive, aiming to describe particularly characteristics of a selected group, or comparative surveys, studying the relationship between variables (Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 288; McKenna et al., 2006, pp. 261.263). The survey process has following steps (Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 289; see also Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, pp. 208-211 for an overview):

1. Determine the necessary information
2. Define the population
3. Select the survey form
4. Design the questionnaire
5. Pretest the survey on a sub-sample
6. Draw a sample
7. Administer the survey to the sample
8. Analyse the results

These steps are embedded into the general research process and therefore driven by research questions or aims. These determine the information to be gathered as well as the population of interest (i.e. a group with particular characteristics (Bordens & Abbott, 2007, p. 268)). There are different forms of survey, depending on the medium used to collect the data. Blumberg et al. (2008, pp. 282-283) divide the survey forms into three categories: (1) personal interviews, (2) telephone interviews and (3) self-administered interviews. These categories are further subdivided according to the medium (Blumberg et al., 2008, pp. 282-283). Each medium has its advantages and disadvantages. The medium influences the type of questions that can be asked. The medium has to be therefore chosen before the design of the questionnaire. A questionnaire contains a number of items (questions). Depending on the purpose of the survey, the items can have different levels of restriction from open-ended to restricted (e.g. multiple choice, scale) (Bordens & Abbott, 2007, pp. 253-260). There are rules for the design of the items to ensure that the resulting questionnaire will collect the data correctly (Murphy-Black, 2006). Before using the questionnaire, it should be pre-tested on a small sample (e.g. a purposive sample, De Vaus, 2002, p. 90). Administering a survey to the whole population is usually not possible (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 211). Therefore, a suitable sample must be drawn. To make sure, that the sample is representative for the whole population, the survey research uses a number of different sampling methods (Cohen et al., 2007, pp. 100-118; (De Vaus, 2002, pp. 69-93)). Once a sample has been drawn, the survey can be administered using the selected survey form and the designed questionnaire. The collected results of a survey can be analysed using a variety of methods. Often, quantitative methods are used to aggregate and explore the results, but it is also possible to use qualitative methods to analyse open-ended questions.

The survey method offers a number of potentials and it also has many risks.

• Focus: A survey is a highly focused research method. When driven by an exact research question, a survey will deliver precise information. At the same time, this focus is very limiting. A survey will ignore any information not anticipated by the researchers. Using open questions can lessen the problem, but it also diminishes comparability and precision. (Cohen et al., 2007, pp. 206-207)
• Self-reporting: A survey relies on self-reports of the research subjects. It can therefore be successfully used to collect individual views. However, the answers of the survey participants are thus always subjective. As the analysis methods further interpret or aggregate such subjective information, a survey ought not be seen as objective. (Aldridge & Levine, 2001, p. 12)
• Intervention: Survey is driven by the research question and thus by interests of the researchers. Furthermore, the administration of a survey is a considerable intrusion on to the research sub jects. The caused bias has to be considered by the researchers. On the other hand, survey is a highly flexible and can be designed and administered according to the needs of the studies population. (Aldridge & Levine, 2001, p. 13)
• Sampling: It is usually impossible to administer the survey to the whole population. Surveys therefore rely on sampling methods. These methods, combined with non-response problems form the sample can lead to a considerable bias.(De Vaus, 2002, pp. 69-93)

The survey offers a powerful, highly focused method to reach answers to clear questions or aims. To benefit from its advantages, the research need to be grounded on existing theories or assumption.

Evaluation research

The purpose of evaluation is the assessment of the value or worth of a particular object  (Oliver, 2004, p. 120). Evaluation is closely related to research and often uses similar methods. A branch of research, called evaluation research, is concerned with conducting evaluation (Robson, 2006, pp. 289-290, see also Oliver, 2004 for an overview of the history of evaluation). The evaluation research uses research methods and aims to maintain rigour and validity. However, unlike research, which should generate knowledge without judging it, evaluation research has to assign a value to the research object (e.g. service, project, educational programme) (Robson, 2006, p. 289). The differerences between research and evaluation research can be summed up in following points (compare the review in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, pp. 42-43):

• The motivation and aims of the study (general curiosity, undestanding vs. evaluation)
• The scope of the study (broad vs. focused)
• The use of the study (knowledge vs. decision)
• Criteria for assessment of the study (validity vs. utility and credibility)

Robson (2006, pp. 292-298) distinguishes following four types (or models) of evaluation research in nursing:

• Needs-based evaluation for the assessment of needs of a target group,
• Outcome-based evaluation for the assessment of the outcomes (e.g. of a project or intervention; typically, the outcomes are measured based on the objectives of the project, intervention etc.),
• Process evaluation, which evaluates the research project in practice (e.g. how does the programme work? what are the experiences of the project participants; this type of evaluation often uses qualitative research),
• Cost-benefit evaluation, which typically compares the monetary costs and benefits of the evaluation object (although non-monetary criteria might also be included.

Further, evaluation can be differentiated in summative and formative. The aim of formative evaluation is the promotion of the evaluated object. Summative evaluations describe the effects of the object. (Robson, 2006, p. 296)

Patton (1997, pp. 89-113) suggest different types of evaluation, wishing to positively influence the evaluated organisation:

• Evaluation to enhance shared understanding, esp. about results,
• Evaluation to support and reinforce the programme through intervention-oriented evaluation
• Evaluation to increase participants’ engagement, sense of ownership and self-determination (participatory, collaborative and empowerment evaluation) and
• Evaluation for programme or organisational development (developmental evaluation).

Somewhere in between is Chelimsky (1997), who can see evaluation being used for accountability, for knowledge and for development. With regard to evaluation for accountability, there are currently two main approaches: evidence-based practice (using ’systematic reviews’ of existing research, assessing the quality of the research according to the methods used; favours quantitative methods, particularly randomised trials) and theory-based evaluation (attempts to articulate the ‘programming logic’ through theories or models, thus giving reason for the evaluation results). (source: MRes script)

Oliver (2004, pp. 123 et seq.) describes the evaluation process using following steps (taken from the ILRT toolkit):

1. Identification of the audience for the evaluation
   Evaluation is not just about answering policymaker’s questions, it can also contribute to a organisational learning process. Many studies have multiple audiences.
2. Selection of an evaluation question
   The question is often oriented on the needs of the stakeholders. The questions of the stakeholders might have to be rephrased to be (a) exploratory, (b) comparative, (c) about measurement and (d) based on contrasting assumptions.
3. Choice of an evaluation methodology
   The evaluation questions influenced the choice of methods.
4. Choice of data collection methods
   The convenience of gathering data should also be considered, as many evaluation have a limited time budget.
5. Choice of data analysis methods
6. Selection of the most appropriate format(s) for reporting the findings to the audience
   Evaluation always has a target audience and a certain purpose. According to Patton, an evaluation ought to truly focus on addressing the audience and attaining its purpose if it does not want to be forgotten and thus wasted. An evaluation research should thus aim to contribute in some way to the practice. Often, evaluation uses the scientific style of writing, playing down the role of the researcher and the audience.

As written before, the methods used in evaluation research are similar or even identical to research methods. Accordingly, evaluation research can choose from an array of quantitative and qualitative methods. The choice of methods should be governed by the aim of the research, although the target audience can also influence the choice. (Robson, 2006, pp. 296-298)

Evaluations are often carried out to support decision makers. This purpose can lead to ethical dilemmas, as the target might attempt (intentionally or unintentionally) to influence the evaluation process and its result. (Robson, 2006, p. 298) Cohen & Manion (1994) (as cited by Oliver, 2004, pp. 133-134) name five ethical issues for research:

• Getting access and getting acceptance
• Privacy
• Anonymity
• Confidentiality
• Deception

Open Research, Open Science

I wanted to make a presentation about Open Research and Open Science for our internal doctoral seminar at the Dresden University of Technology (my slides from the seminar in German language are available here). For this purpose, I tried to sum up for myself, what Open Science and Open Research mean. I confess, I found it quite difficult. Anyway, this is what I came up with:

I started by trying to define the terms ‘open science’ and ‘open research. They are very often used synonymously, although I cannot agree, that they should mean the same. I therefore reviewed the definition ’science’ and ‘research’.

Fig. 1 : Science and Research

There is a close connection between science and research. Science uses research, a process of systematic inquiry, as meant of gaining new knowledge (Bordens & Abbott, 2007, p. 2; Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 26). However, not all research takes place in science. In fact, scientific research has to fulfil very specific criteria (Heinrich, 1993, pp. 62-66; Shugan, 2004, pp. 174-175), e.g. be public, replicable, unprejudiced, independent and it must advance the state of the art (Heinrich, 1993, pp. 62-66; Shugan, 2004, pp. 174-175). Research outside these restriction is non-scientific. This does not mean it is worse than scientific research. It simply has different aims. (During my presentation, I had a little discussion with one of the participants, who basically differentiated between scientific research and bad research. I do not share this view. I agree with the authors cited here, that rigorous and valuable research exists outside of science. It just has different purpose and hence different restrictions).  But science is not just about research. According to Bordens & Abbott (2007) science is also a way of thinking and viewing the world. Going back to open science and open research, this would mean, that there is open research outside of open science and open science outside of open research.

Now, what does “open” mean? David (2004) offers a very nice historical overview of the development of science from secretive activities towards openness (see also Nielsen, 2008). According to them, openness developed from the need to judge scientific merit. David, den Besten & Schroeder (2009) describe two levels of openness: the openness of research process and the openness of the research results. These are similar to Merton’s (1979, pp. 223-280) communalism and universalism (four or nowadays five CUDOS by Merton – see also David et al., 2009). Communalism calls for the resignation of the intellectual property rights on scientists’ findings and for common access to resources. Universalism demands, that the ability alone should be used to judge the scientists and the quality of their results – not individual factors like race, nationality, religion etc. The European Charter for Researchers goes even further and asks researchers to carry out their research for the good of the mankind. I think this already poses many interesting questions. Why do researchers publish their results? Do they do it for career purposes or for the development of science and hence the society alone? I think, that different publishing practices result from these two aims (i.e. publish or parish).

Further questions arise, if we view the development of ICT and their influence on research. The possibilities created by the technology make us reflect, how open the science should be. Because now there are different levels of openness possible.

• Publication of results – fine, but is a journal or a book open enough?
• Availability of resources – then how about sharing data?
• Free access to research projects – shall I then open my whole research process so that anyone can join any time?

These questions also mirror the areas associated to open science:  open access,  open data and open process (also open notebook and open source). I have collected a few links on these. This is of course not a full list – just a few places to get further information and ideas.

Open Access

• Open Access Initiative – a lot of information about Open Access, its history and issues
• Direcory of Open Journals
• Public Library of Science – committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource
• arXiv.org -  the greatest archive of open access scientific work
• Sprouts – an archive for scientific work on information systems
• Academic Publishing Wiki

Open Data

• openPSI – making publicly collected data avalilable
• Swivel – platform for sharing data
• many eyes – platform for sharing data

Open Process

• OpenWetWare - the open notebook wikis
• myExperiment – exchanging workflows

The discussions around open science and open research gave me lot to think about. I think there are no easy answers here. Everyone has to make a choice and find his or her position. The technology may act as an enabler, but the question of open science is more about culture and ethics (e.g. one of the presentation participants pointed out to me, that when collecting data in social sciences, the researchers assure the participants not to use the data for purposes other than this research – passing such data to others would not be ethical). Just as that there is science beyond scientific research – a particular way of thinking and viewing the world, there appears to me to really be open science beyond open research. The open research can utilize the chances the technology offers for sharing whatever we want. Open science, however, further calls for a culture of openness within science.

Case study

Case study research has been discussed controversially by researchers as well as in scientific literature. The aim of case study research is the study of phenomena in their context (Yin, 2002, p. 14). The object of a case study is a single instance within a case, seen as a bounded system (compare Cohen et al., 2007, p. 253). The selection and definition of the case are crucial to the research (Clarke & Reed, 2006, p. 306 et seq.). Stake (1995, p. 2) sees cases as integrated systems. A. Brown and Dowling (1998, pp. 165-167) criticise Stake’s definition, because it implies, that the world is made of clearly defined system that just have to be picked by the researchers. They suggest, that the case is the result of the researchers’ decision and sampling processes.

Case studies can be used for the exploration of different types of research questions. Table 1 gives an overview of case study types described by different authors. It is a common opinion, that case studies are only suitable for the generation of hypotheses and theories (Flyvbjerg, 2006, pp. 224-233; Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 115). The reason for this view is the problematic generalisation of case studies. According to Flyvbjerg, it is well possible to generalise from on case. It is then however important to select the case according to the purpose of the research (for overview of strategies for the selection of sample cases see Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.230). In this context Yin (2002, p. 37) distinguishes between statistical generalisation and analytical generalisation, where the latter can be achieved through case study research. Flyvbjerg further argues, that the importance of formal (statistical) generalisation has been overvalued.

Table 1: Types of case study research

The researchers’ role in a case study is generally that of passive observers, although interventionist case studies are also possible (Rugg & Petre, 2007, pp. 63-65). These would then be closely related to action research (e.g. Mcniff & Whitehead, 2006). Throughout the case study, the researchers aim to collect a rich documentation describing the research object as well as its context (Cohen et al., 2007, pp. 260-262). The collection of the facts, as well as its documentation depend on the subjective decisions of the researchers’. It has been therefore suggested, that case study research contains a bias towards verification of the researchers’ own opinions (Flyvbjerg, 2006, pp. 234-237). It has to be however questioned, whether this applies only to case studies. In other research methods (e.g. surveys, experiments) the sample is also selected by the researchers and the results have to be interpreted. It has to be thus assumed, that other research methods are subjects to the same bias as case studies (Flyvbjerg, 2006, pp. 234-237).

The documentation of research results is an important part of case study. Case studies allow the researchers to grasp the whole context of the research object. To take advantage of this, the case study has to be recorded in detail (Blumberg et al., 2008). The methods used for the data collection can be qualitative or quantitative (although it is generally assumed, that case study research is always qualitative (Gable, 1994)). The collected data can thus vary from narrative to numeric (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 262). The documentation can show different level structure: from unstructured field notes to structured data from surveys (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 262). Many case studies are analysed and later published in a narrative form. Some authors see this as an important advantage of case study research (Clarke & Reed, 2006; Flyvbjerg, 2006), as aggregation of any form could lead to loss of important information. However, a statistical analysis of the case study data is also possible, depending an the aims of the research.

Case study research has been heavily criticised for lack of rigour. When exploring case studies, it is thus necessary to pay attention to research design. Blumberg et al. (2008, p. 381) suggest eight criteria for good case study research (although they are applicable to other research methods as well): (1) clearly defined purpose, (2) detailed research process, (3) thoroughly planned research design, (4) application of ethical standards, (5) frankly revealed limitations, (6) adequate analysis, (7) unambiguously presented findings and (8) justified conclusion.

Ethnography

Research based on ethnography involves the immersion of the researcher in social groups for the purpose of research (Berg, 2001, p. 134; Holloway & Todres, 2006, p. 208; Rugg & Petre, 2007, pp. 111-112). The size of the studied group can vary from macro-ethnographies studying large cultures to micro-ethnographies (Holloway & Todres, 2006, p. 208). The aim of an ethnography is to observe a research object in its natural context. For this reason, the researchers have to gain admission to the studied social group (compare Bordens & Abbott, 2007, p. 231, who allow also non-participative ethnographies). Besides the personal view as a part of the research, the researchers collect further insider (emic) views by selecting informers from the group. The choice of informers has to be carefully planned and consistant with the research aim (Holloway & Todres, 2006, p. 214).

The role of the researchers in an ethnographic study is that of observers. However, through the direct involvement of the researchers in the observed social group, there is a risk that the researchers will influence the processes within the studied group. This can be partially avoided, if the researchers choose covert observation (Bordens & Abbott, 2007, p. 231) and thus eliminate the Hawthorne effect (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 156). Although covert participation helps to collected unbiased information, it also raises ethical issues. Covertly observed participants cannot give an informed consent to the research (Cohen et al., 2007, pp. 174-175; Bordens & Abbott, 2007, p. 231). Is it then allowed to argue, that the interest of science or the society can be placed above the interest of the individuals in the studied group (Mitchell, 1993, p. 54)? And how far is it possible to justified the actions of the researchers’ within the social group (in extreme case criminal offences) by their commission (Rugg & Petre, 2007, pp. 111-112)?

The documentation of ethnographic research consists of data from different sources and containing different types of information (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2008, p. 367; Holloway & Todres, 2006, p. 216). The collection of data is mainly qualitative, although the use of quantitative methods can also be useful. Important methods are observation and ethnographic interviews. Ethnographic interviews are unstructured and in-depth, although the researcher can use focused questions (Holloway & Todres, 2006, p. 216-217). An essential part of documentation of ethnographies are the field notes. These can have the form of a diary, recording the researchers’ experiences throughout the study. The notes have a high level of detail, in order to capture the context (Holloway & Todres, 2006, p. 217).

Action Research

Action Research is an approach, which aims to solve a real-world problem through cyclic change process (compare Bukvova, 2009, pp. 9-11). Action Research addresses criticised gap between research an practice. There are many books and articles describing the features of action research, aiming to differentiate it from other research approaches. An excellent review can be found in Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2007, pp. 297-313).

I have lately had a very fruitful discussion with my colleagues from MRes about action research. Based on this discussion as well as previous group work, I have collected for myself following criteria defining action research:

• Focus on real-world problems. There are other research approaches, that are also concerned with real-world problems (e.g. Design Science). Action Research is per definition concerned only with real-world problems (Hult & Lennung, 1980, p. 242). These problems often involve social processes.
• Change of the research environment. In more ‘traditional’ research approaches (Behavioural Science), the researchers strive for the control of the environment. They want to be aware of all the the factors involved. They keep the factors as static as possible, while purposefully observing or changing particular variables. Action Research operates (as the name suggests) through action. This action causes change in the research environment. It is through this change, that the research problem is solved.
• Systematic, cyclic evaluation. The first two points about action research actually describe action alone. Solving a problem through change of environment is not necessarily research. To define Action Research, it is therefore necessary to mention its research process. In its simplest, the researchers in Action Research realise a constant alternation between action (causing change) and reflection (evaluating the change). In the reflection phase, the researchers evaluate the influence of the action on the research problem. For this purpose, they use the variables defined in the research problem. The systematic use of analytical methods allows action research to solve a concrete problem, while generating scientific knowledge (compare Hult & Lennung, 1980, p. 243). Although I have written, that this feature identifies Action Research as a scientific research approach, it is also one of the mostly criticised points about Action Research. Supporters of more ‘traditional’ see action research as “too soft”. This begins with typically less restrictive research question. Furthermore, Action Research often uses qualitative approach, which has been criticised as less rigorous than the quantitative approach (interesting suggestions about increasing the rigour of qualitative research can be found in Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002).
• Involvement of the researcher. Typically, researchers aim to dissociate themselves from their research object. This way, they hope to increase their objectivity. Action research is different. Here, the researchers are in the midst of the action. Through direct involvement with the stakeholders and the change that takes place in Action Research, the researchers are able to gain full scope of the research context. Arguably, this leads to researchers’ bias. I have also seen the argument, that researchers in Action Researcher also have to a stake in the research object, e.g. be themselves practitioners researching an area of importance to them, or maybe ex-practitioners now returning in the role of researchers. I don not agree with this view. The researchers per definition have an interest in the research, although it might not be directly connected to the practice. By taking active part in the change and collaborating with other stakeholders, they will still be able to grasp the context and understand the objectives of the stakeholders, without being a part of the research environment.
• Involvement of stakeholders. Apart from the researcher, there are others who have interest in the research problem or even more generally in the research object. This group includes individuals, who are subjects of the research, but also others, who might have a stake in the research performance or the research results. Action Research has been defined as ‘participative’ and ‘collaborative’ (Hult & Lennung, 1980, p. 243). This means, that the stakeholders should be directly and democratically involved in the research. This can lead to problems, as the objectives of the researchers and the different stakeholder groups are likely to differ.

A nice summary of these feature can be seen in the definition of Action Research by Hult & Lennung (1980, p. 247):

Action research simultaneously assists in practical problem-solving and expands scientific knowledge, as well as enhances the competencies of tbe respective actors, being performed collaboratively in an immediate situation using data feedback in a cyclical process aiming at an increased understanding of a given social situation, primarily applicable for the understanding of change processes in social systems and undertaken within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.

Asking a research question

How does research begin? Where do research ideas come from? There appears to be no satisfactory answer to these questions. Research often begins with unstructured ideas, ‘hunches’ and feelings of the researchers (Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 37; Lacey, 2006, p. 17-18). In practice oriented disciplines like nursing or educations (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2008, p. 57-60; Lacey, 2006, p. 18), research ideas can be related to observations or views of the practice. A very fruitful spring of research ideas seems to be informal exchange with colleagues and other researchers. Structured approach to the generation of research ideas is also possible, e.g. through the study of literature or systematic collection of research ideas (Bortz & Döring, 2006, p. 37). There is a general agreement, that the generation of research ideas is highly creative and mostly ill-structured (Bukvova, 2009, p. 13).

To trigger the research process, the vague idea has to be transformed into a precise research problem (Bukvova, 2009, p. 13-14). The literature offers different views on the form and the precision of the research problem. This can vary from a more general question to a precise hypothesis (Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 38; compare also Bordens & Abbot, 2007, p. 23). However, although some forms of research begin with a research question rather than a concrete hypothesis (e.g. in Action Research, the research questions can develop throughout the research cycles), this does not mean, that they begin with an unclear problem. At the beginning of every research has to be a clear definition of the research problem.

Generally, researchers try to refine the research question as far as possible (Graziano & Raulin, 2009, pp. 54-55). The more information the researchers have about their area of interest, the more precise the question will be. For this reason, exploratory research begins with more general questions. Heck (2006, pp. 83-86) suggests, that each research should have a broader research aim. Connected to the aim are concrete research objectives. The research question are on the next level and they define the variables of interest to the researcher. To specify the variables, it might be helpful to ask questions like Who?, Where?, What?, Why?, When? and How?. If the researchers have enough information, they can define hypotheses. A hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more variables (Heck, 2006, p. 86). Whereas the aim of question-driven research is to describe the relationship between the given variables, hypothesis-driven research begins with an assumed relationship and aims to test its validity. Bortz & Döring (2006, p. 4) state following rules for the development of hypotheses:

1. A scientific hypothesis is concerned with real issues that can be empirically tested.
2. A scientific hypothesis is generally valid (i.e. applicable beyond a single event).
3. A scientific hypothesis describes (at least implicitly) a causal relationship (i.e. If-Then).
4. The hypothesis has to be falsifiable (i.e. an event has to be thinkable, in which case the hypothesis would be wrong).

The research question has is crucial for the design of the research procedure. It should therefore be developed with care and as much precision as possible.

10. interuniversitäres Doktorandenseminar in Wirtschaftsinformatik

Meine Kollegen und ich haben heute an dem 10. interuniversitären Doktorandenseminar in Wirtschaftsinformatik in Jena teilgenommen. Das Doktorandenseminar soll Wirtschaftsinformatiker aus Halle, Leipzig, Jena, Dresden und Freiberg verbinden. Wir Dresdner waren das erste Mal dabei. Das Seminar ging den ganzen Tag. Insgesamt haben neun Doktoranden vorgetragen.

Was ich interessant fand, war die Breite der Themen. So viele verschiedene Lehrstühle haben natürlich die unterschiedlichsten Sichten auf Wirtschaftsinformatik und viele Forschungsthemen. Hier hatte ich die Gelegenheit mir neun von ihnen anzuhören und noch weitere in den Proceedings nachlesen.

Dennoch fand ich es sehr anstrengend – acht Stunden Vorträge war mir einfach viel zu viel. Am Ende konnte ich mich kaum noch konzentrieren. Die schlechte Raumakustik war auch keine Hilfe. Des Weiteren fördert dieses Format kaum das Networking. Auch wurde für mich zu lange präsentiert und zu kurz diskutiert. Besser fände ich kurze Präsentation (max. 15 Minuten) und dafür genug Zeit für Diskussion. Toll fand ich auch den Vorschlag von Hendrik Kalb, etwa zwei Stunden lieber einer offenen Diskussion zu widmen. Dabei könnte man mehrere Themen festlegen, sodass sich jeder ein Thema aussuchen kann und darüber mit anderen diskutieren kann.

Im Wintersemester 2009/2010 werden wir uns im Rahmen dieses Seminars wieder treffen, dieses Mal in Halle.

PhD-Thesis Status Report: May 2009

Status: I am getting on quite well. I have a clear aim and I am gethering the information I need.

Problems: No real problems at the moment.

Finished: I have had to change my research aim a bit. I have written an extended abstract which covers the aim and the current status of the thesis. I have submitted it by the symposium on Academic Globalization 2009 and I hope I will get a lot of constructive criticism to help me with further steps.

Present: I am working on the game theory part of my thesis.

All in all, I am quite satisfied with my current progress. i am looking forward to the feedback from the AG 2009.