Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linking Organizational Controls and Organizational Learning: Research Approach and Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Organizational Forms, Controls, and Institutions

  • 1029 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the research studies used as a basis for the empirical analysis that will be presented in Chapter 8. We start by clarifying the epistemological and ontological positions. We then provide information on the nature and the quality of data collected, and provide a description of the data analysis performed along with a description of the reliability and validity checks executed in each research study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annosi, M. C., Khanagha, S., & Magnusson, M. (2015, January). A multi-level study of managerial control influence on self-managed team innovativeness. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 16627. Academy of Management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annosi, M. C., Magnusson, M., Martini, A., & Appio, F. P. (2016). Social conduct, learning and innovation: an abductive study of the dark side of agile software development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(4), 515–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., & Magnusson, M. (2016b). Self-organizing coordination and control approaches: The impact of social norms on self-regulated innovation activities in self-managing teams. In C. F. Nourani (Ed.), Ecosystems and technology. idea generation and content model processing. Oakville, ON, Canada: Apple Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annosi, M. C., Foss, N. J., Brunetta, F., & Magnusson, M. (2017). The interaction of control systems and stakeholder networks in shaping the identities of self-managed teams. Organization Studies, 38, 619–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J. R., & Tompkins, P. (1994). Identification in the self-managing organization characteristics of target and tenure. Human Communication Research, 21(2), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 220–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, T. J. (1976). Field research methods: Interviewing, questionnaires, participant observation, systematic observation, and unobtrusive measures. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1982). The concept of external validity. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 240–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1979). Degrees of freedom and the case study. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 49–67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Day, A. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings (Vol. 351). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1137–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, R. (1977). Research by convenience. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 57–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization, 12(2), 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 91–110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography: Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, D. R., & Lautsch, B. A. (2011). Counting in qualitative research: Why to conduct it, when to avoid it, and when to closet it. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B. (1994). Qualitative research in education. SRATE Journal, 4(1), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAXQDA. (2001). Software for qualitative data analysis 1989–2016. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software – Consult – Sozialforschung GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Brinberg, D. (1983). External validity and the research process: A comment on the Calder/Lynch dialogue. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 590–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modell, S. (2009). In defence of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20(3), 208–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numagami, T. (1998). Perspective—the infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: A reflective dialogue in defense of case studies. Organization Science, 9(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peräkylä, A. (1997). Validity and reliability in research based on tapes and transcripts. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Analysis: Issues of Theory and Method (pp. 201–220). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.) (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1991). Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1994). How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (1999). Approaches to research (3rd edition). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1995). Notes on the nature and development of general theories. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, H. C., Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2014). A comparative case study of sustaining quality as a competitive advantage. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, (pp 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48(5), 553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). The complexity of diversity: A review of forty years of research. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, R. S. (1999). Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. M., & Barker, J. R. (2000). Assessing concertive control in the term environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Maria Carmela Annosi

  2. LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy

    Federica Brunetta

Authors
  1. Maria Carmela Annosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federica Brunetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Annosi, M.C., Brunetta, F. (2017). Linking Organizational Controls and Organizational Learning: Research Approach and Methodology. In: New Organizational Forms, Controls, and Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54750-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation