Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:19:14.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflecting and Integrating the Contextual Influences of Ambiguities and Institutional Power in Organisational Research Design: A Case of Myanmar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2019

Sandar Win  and
Alexander K. Kofinas
Sandar Win*
Affiliation:
University of Bedfordshire, UK
Alexander K. Kofinas
Affiliation:
University of Bedfordshire, UK
*
Corresponding author: Sandar Win ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our understanding of how an organisation operates is elucidated by the host country's political system. Myanmar has remained abstruse to researchers for many decades, as do most emerging markets prior to their transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy such as China. We establish how the problematising and contextualisation of the methodologies adopted during longitudinal fieldwork in Myanmar (2008 to 2016) has influenced our research focus and question. By reflecting on our experience of conducting organisational research in a highly institutionalised environment, we have identified limitations in the prevalent research methodologies used by the extant literature. Such methodologies tend to be incompatible with the Asian context. This process of problematisation required us to remain flexible and adaptive during the process of the generation of the research questions. We adopted a context-informed theory-building process and reflect on the interplay between interviewer, interviewees, and local institutional contexts. An important insight from this process was the need to nullify the asymmetry of power between the interviewer and interviewees to obtain honest responses rather than superficial data that aimed to satisfy and please the interviewer/institutional context.

摘要

我们对于组织运作的理解是由东道国政治制度来解释的。缅甸几十年来对于研究者而言一直是难于理解的，这同像中国这样的大多数新兴经济体在实现从计划经济转型为市场经济之前的情形一样。我们阐明，在缅甸从事追踪田野研究（2006-2016）期间所采取的问题解决和方法论的情境化，怎样影响了我们的研究焦点和问题。通过反省我们在高度制度化环境下从事组织研究的经验，我们发现，已有文献中采用的主流研究方法存在不足，这些方法论与亚洲情境不契合。解决问题的过程要求我们在产生研究问题的过程中保持灵活性和适应性。我们采用了一个情境知会式理论建立过程，反映访问者、被访者和当地情境的互动。从这个过程中获得的重要洞见在于，要消除访问者和被访者之间的权力不平衡才可以获得诚实的回答，而非获得旨在满足访问者/制度情境的肤浅数据。

Аннотация

Наше представление о том, как работают организации, сводится к политической системе в конкретной стране. В течение многих десятилетий, Мьянма оставалась труднодоступной для исследователей, как и большинство развивающихся рынков до перехода от централизованной плановой экономики к рыночной экономике, как, например, Китай. Мы показываем, каким образом проблематизация и контекстуализация методов исследования, которые применялись в ходе продолжительной полевой работы в Мьянме (2008–2016 гг), повлияли на постановку вопроса и направление в наших исследованиях. На основании нашего опыта проведения организационных исследований в стране с сильными институтами, мы обнаружили ряд ограничений в распространенных методах исследований, которые используются в существующей литературе. Такие методы, как правило, несовместимы с азиатским контекстом. Этот процесс проблематизации потребовал, чтобы мы оставались гибкими и адаптивными в процессе постановки вопросов исследования. Мы использовали контекстуальный процесс построения теории, а также задумались о взаимодействии интервьюера, интервьюируемых и местных институциональных контекстов. Важным выводом из этого процесса стала необходимость нейтрализовать асимметрию неравенства между интервьюером и интервьюируемыми для того, чтобы получить честные ответы, а не поверхностные сведения, которые имеют своей целью понравиться и удовлетворить интервьюера / институциональный контекст.

Resumen

Nuestro entendimiento de cómo una organización funciona es esclarecido por el sistema político del país anfitrión. Myanmar ha permanecido recóndito para los investigadores durante muchas décadas, al igual que la mayoría de los mercados emergentes antes de su transición de una economía de planificación centralizada a una economía de mercado como China. Establecemos cómo la problematización y contextualización de las metodologías adoptadas durante un trabajo de campo longitudinal en Myanmar (2008 a 2016) ha influido en nuestro enfoque y pregunta de investigación. Al reflexionar sobre nuestra experiencia llevando a cabo investigaciones organizacionales en un entorno altamente institucionalizado, hemos identificado limitaciones en las metodologías de investigación prevalecientes utilizadas por la literatura existente. Tales metodologías tienden a ser incompatibles con el contexto asiático. Este proceso de problematización requirió que nos mantuviéramos flexibles y adaptativos durante el proceso de generación de las preguntas de investigación. Adoptamos un proceso de construcción de teorías basado en el contexto y reflexionamos sobre la interacción entre quién entrevista, los entrevistados y los contextos institucionales locales. Una reflexión importante de este proceso fue la necesidad de anular la asimetría de poder entre el entrevistador y los entrevistados para obtener respuestas honestas en lugar de datos superficiales que pretendían satisfacer y complacer al entrevistador/ contexto institucional.

Keywords

emerging marketsinstitutional theoryinterview methodsqualitative researchresearch methodology新兴市场制度理论访谈法研究方法定性研究развивающиеся рынкиинституциональная теорияметоды интервьюметодология исследованийкачественные исследованияmercados emergentesteoría institucionalmétodos de entrevistametodología de investigacióninvestigación cualitativa
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Special Issue 2: Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets , June 2019 , pp. 341 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Guest Editor Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki

References

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M. 2003. Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 13–33.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 247–271.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2014. Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking research. Organization Studies, 35(7): 967–987.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. R., Saparito, P., Kressel, K., Hristensen, E., & Hooijberg, R. 1997. A model for reflective pedagogy. Journal of Management Education, 21(2): 155–167.Google Scholar
Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. 1977. Defining the social studies. The University of Michigan, MI: National Council for the Social Studies.Google Scholar
Beck, T., & Demirguc-Kunt, A. 2006. Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a growth constraint. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11): 2931–2943.Google Scholar
Biesta, G. 2010. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Bissinger, J. 2014. Myanmar's economic institutions in transition. Journal of Southeast Asian Economics, 31(2): 241–255.Google Scholar
Borbasi, S., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. 2005. Fieldwork in nursing research: Positionality, practicalities and predicaments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(5): 493–501.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Burns, S., & Bulman, C. 2000. Reflective practice in nursing: The growth of the professional practitioner. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Carnochan, S., Samples, M., Myers, M. & Austin, M. J. 2013. Performance measurement challenges in nonprofit human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6): 1014–1032.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1992. The institutional structure of production. The American Economic Review, 82(4): 713–719.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 2008. Perspective–Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19(1): 177–183.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 2000. Introduction: The discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 2011. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1925. Experience and nature. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1933. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Company.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1937. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 2002. Human nature and conduct. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
Elkelish, W. W., & Hassan, M. K. 2015. Corporate governance disclosure and share price accuracy. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 16(2): 265–286.Google Scholar
Evered, R., & Louis, M. R. 1981. Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: ‘Inquiry from the inside’ and ‘inquiry from the outside’. The Academy of Management Review, 6(3): 385–395.Google Scholar
Feilzer, M. Y. 2009. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1): 6–16.Google Scholar
Gibbs, G. 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. FEU.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2012. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31.Google Scholar
Grancelli, B. 1995. Organizational change: Towards a new east–west comparison. Organization Studies, 16(1): 1–25.10.1177/017084069501600102Google Scholar
Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. 2010. The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2): 110–115.Google Scholar
Gray, D. E. 2017. Doing research in the real world. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Gross, N. 2018. Pragmatism and the study of large-scale social phenomena. Theory and Society, 47(1): 87–111.Google Scholar
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Hassan, M. K. 2008. The development of accounting regulations in Egypt: Legitimating the international accounting standards. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(5): 467–484.Google Scholar
Hassan, M. K., Sanchez, B., Ngene, G. M., & Ashraf, A. 2012. Financial liberalization and foreign bank entry on the domestic banking performance in MENA countries. African Development Review, 24(3): 195–207.Google Scholar
Haworth, K. 2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, 17(6): 739–759.10.1177/0957926506068430Google Scholar
Hébert, C. 2015. Knowing and/or experiencing: A critical examination of the reflective models of John Dewey and Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 16(3): 361–371.Google Scholar
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. 2005. Interpretive practice and social action. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Johnson, S., Boone, P., Breach, A., & Friedman, E. 2000. Corporate governance in the Asian financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2): 141–186.Google Scholar
Keevers, L., & Treleaven, L. 2011. Organizing practices of reflection: A practice-based study. Management Learning, 42(5): 505–520.Google Scholar
Keightley, E. 2010. Remembering research: Memory and methodology in the social sciences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(1): 55–70.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Korybko, A. 2015. Myanmar's color revolution and mysterious ‘soft coup’ attempt. Centre for Research on Globalization. [Accessed 2015]. Available from URL: https://www.globalresearch.ca/myanmars-color-revolution-and-mysterious-soft-coup-attempt/5473834Google Scholar
Kubo, K. 2012. Trade polices and trade misreporting in Myanmar. ASEAN Economic Bulleting, 29(2): 146–159.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. 2012. The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuit, J. A., Reay, G., & Freeman, R. 2001. Experiences of reflective teaching. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2(2): 128–142.Google Scholar
Laffont, J. 1998. Competition, information and development. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics: 237–257.Google Scholar
Larsson, M., Pettersson, C., Eriksson, C., & Skoog, T. 2016. Initial motives and organizational context enabling female mentors' engagement in formal mentoring – A qualitative study from the mentors' perspective. Children and Youth Services Review, 71: 17–26.Google Scholar
Li, J. 2008. Ethical challenges in participant observation: A reflection on ethnographic fieldwork. The Qualitative Report, 13(1): 100–115.Google Scholar
Malmi, T. 2010. Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2): 121–123.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 119–137.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1): 48–76.Google Scholar
Nanyondo, M., Tauringana, V., Kamukama, N., & Nkundabanyanga, S. 2014. Quality of financial statements, information asymmetry, perceived risk and access to finance by Ugandan SMEs. International Journal of Management Practice, 7(4): 324–340.Google Scholar
Nehru, V. 2015. Developing Myanmar's finance sector to support rapid, inclusive and sustainable economic growth. ADB Economics Working Paper Series. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.10.2139/ssrn.2655617Google Scholar
Neuman, W. L. 2000. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.10.5465/amr.1991.4279002Google Scholar
Quattrone, P. 2009. ‘We have never been Post-modern’: On the search of management accounting theory. European Accounting Review, 18(3): 621–630.Google Scholar
Rapley, T. J. 2001. The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3): 303–323.Google Scholar
Riach, K. 2009. Exploring participant-centred reflexivity in the research interview. Sociology, 43(2): 356–370.Google Scholar
Ross, E. W., & Lynne, M. H. 1986. Towards a critical theory of reflective inquiry: Theme. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4): 9–15.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2011. Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1): 23–44.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. 2017. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. 2007. Toward polycontextually sensitive research methods. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 129–152.Google Scholar
Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. 2013. Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12): 2185–2192.Google Scholar
Singh, A. 2003. Competition, corporate governance and selection in emerging markets. The Economic Journal, 113(491): F443–F464.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. 2006. The production of knowledge: The challenges of social science research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stoian, M.-C., Dimitratos, P., & Plakoyiannaki, E. 2018. SME internationalization beyond exporting: A knowledge-based perspective across managers and advisers. Journal of World Business, 53(5): 768–779.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Liu, G. S. 2011. Corporate governance failure and contingent political resources in transition economies: A longitudinal case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4): 853–879.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. 1998. Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Than, T. M. M. 2014. Introductory overview: Myanmar's economic reforms. Journal of Southeast Asian Economics, 31(2): 165–172.Google Scholar
Truman, E. M. 2006. Reform of the IMF for the 21st century. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K. 2009. Chinese management research at a crossroads: Some philosophical considerations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 131–143.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1353–1364.Google Scholar
Turnell, S. 2011. Fundamentals of Myanmar's macroeconomy: A political economy perspective. Asian Economic Policy Review, 6(1): 136–153.Google Scholar
Watson, T. J. 2011. Ethnography, reality, and truth: The vital need for studies of ‘how things work’ in organizations and management. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1): 202–217.Google Scholar
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.Google Scholar
Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. 1998. Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9(2): 123–140.Google Scholar
Win, S. 2013. Challenges of conducting field research in Myanmar (Burma): In the context of banking. Project Southeast Asia . Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Win, S. 2018. Banks’ lending behaviour under repressed financial regulatory environment: In the context of Myanmar. Pacific Accounting Review, 30(1): 20–34.Google Scholar
World Bank . 2013. World Bank Group to support Myanmar's plan to improve people's access to electricity. Available from URL: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/02/05/World-Bank-Group-to-Support-Myanmar-8217-s-Plan-to-Improve-People-8217-s-Access-to-ElectricityGoogle Scholar
Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Wu, Y.-C., Wei Kiong Ting, I., Lu, W.-M., Nourani, M., & Kweh, Q. L. 2016. The impact of earnings management on the performance of ASEAN banks. Economic Modelling, 53: 156–165.Google Scholar
Xuegong, S., & Xueyuan, L. 2011. Small and medium enterprises’ access to finance in China. In Harvie, C., Oum, S., & Narjoko, D. (Eds.), Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) access to finance in selected East Asian Economies: 351–384. Indonesia: ERIA Research Project Report .Google Scholar
Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. 2009. What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8): 1339–1364.Google Scholar