Page 3 of 216
My preferred research model is relationship-focused; more on understanding how organizations
impact individuals and society over organisational effectiveness and efficiency. I favour mid-range or
substantive contingency approaches, usually utilising both deductive and inductive methods and using
both quantitative and qualitative data (Bryman & Bell, 2006). While I hold some affinity for using
theory to structure observed data (i.e., an empiricist’s approach), this research project will require a
phenomenological approach; collectively forming a critical realist perspective on the process.
With regard to “the how” versus “the what” of knowledge, I take Polanyi’s (1966) – constructivist
epistemology – view: when riding a bicycle, in order to keep one’s balance, a practical knowledge of
how to ride is superior to a theoretical knowledge of physics; although understanding both the
application and the physics will aid us as learners. As such I tend to trust hunches for “the how”,
tempered by researching “the what” in a continuous feedback loop.
Thesis Structure
This thesis is structured as follows:
In Chapter 1: Introduction (this chapter), I outline my teaching background; the development
of my research question and the search for better ways to teach leadership cases; and my
approach to my research question.
In Chapter 2: Literature Review – Cases, I consult research and teaching case experts on the
history and development of case studies as a teaching tool, I define what a teaching case is, I
explore case typologies, case structure, what makes an engaging case, teaching notes and
how cases are used.
In Chapter 3: Literature Review – Learning, I explore adult learning theory, andragogy, and
consult adult teaching and learning experts on the use of experiential and active learning,
critical thinking, the use of cases in conveying narrative knowledge, and delivery methods. I
explore research into effective teaching cases to adults, and the leadership theory – shared
leadership, acts of leadership and power sharing – which links my own teaching and research
practice with teaching case delivery.
| | In Chapter 4: Methodology, I explain the research design with which I attempted compare my two chosen teaching methods of the “Case in Point” and ‘Hybrid’ delivery methods. I detail my |
research ontology and epistemology as a critical realist, and explain the process and detail of
the research methodology and methods I have constructed to answer my research question:
do students make sense of leadership cases differently when they are delivered using
different methods?
In Chapter 5: Findings, I explore my Approach A and B recordings. Using my session, focus
group and survey transcripts, I assign categories to my data, and analyse codes using
CAQDAS software and review the incidence of my chosen codes and word counts in Excel. I
Page 4 of 216
find flaws in my research methods but find other ways of obtaining useful results from my
research.
In Chapter 6: Discussion, I compare and reinterpret my findings in light of expert views on
case type, structure and selection. I propose a teaching case definition, and a teaching case
typology. I summarise key elements which provide impact in cases. I outline a possible
‘industry standard’ for case structure, and a process for seeking new cases. I consider
aspects of teaching delivery and effective learning, and guardedly conclude that the “Case in
Point” delivery method as an effective learning tool.
In the final chapter, Chapter 7: Conclusions, I summarise whether or not students made
sense of leadership teaching cases differently when they are delivered using different
methods, what the limitations of my research was, and detail what further questions and
decisions this provokes.