Throughout the process of knowledge creation, researcher has to overcome a lot of issues in order to conduct a fully reliable and valid research process. In the past, I was sure that whatever is said in research is true and all the theories that are provided should not be analyzed. However, the information that we usually collect for research requires not only thorough analysis, but also contrasting and comparing with other concepts and forms of theoretical knowledge. By entrusting the single researcher, we only interpret the data. The process of knowledge creation, on the contrary, requires exploring the research gap between theoretical concepts and issues in the field of research. During the process of knowledge creation, the researcher gains knowledge of many forms of research and types of data collection and analysis. All these research methods produce different results. I have recognized that organizations that are actively applying qualitative research differ from those applying quantitative research. However, all these elements of research design affect the knowledge creation in somewhat unexpected way.
Can't complete your paper?
Need a quick, creative solution?
Never too late to get it done by our prosWrite My Paper
Learning the basics of knowledge creation showed me that all I needed was not merely take the information that is provided and interpret it in a variety of ways, but to take one theory and by exploring it and finding similarities and differences with other theories create the research gap that is the key foundation for knowledge creation. Some authors have explored a number of methodologies which help produce results that enable knowledge creation in organizational research process.
One of these authors is John Hassard. In his study on multiple paradigms, Hassard (1991) claims that the most crucial process in knowledge creation during the process of research is the combination of subject and object debates in the social theory with the consensus-conflict debates that are a part of sociological research. Mainly, Hassard (1991) stresses the importance of combining such research paradigms, as interpretive, radical humanist, functionalist, and radical structuralism. In knowledge creation, comparing those things that are opposite is essential as it helps find the research gap which requires analysis. Comparison and combination of opposite frameworks also enables the researcher to broader his view, which was the case with my own research perspective. After I had learned the basics of multiple paradigms research, I began to realize that uncommon things are usually correlated, and these linkages produce extensive knowledge areas. The focus of multiple paradigms, as Hassard (1991, p. 294) notes, lies in the illustrating ‘how contrasting images of the subject matter emerge when we base our investigations upon incommensurable sets of meta-theoretical assumptions’.
Another aspect that I learned was that the researcher does not have to be totally objective in organizational research. Some complex issues related to the theory of society and social sciences require the insider approach which has been described by Brannick and Coghlan (2007) as valuable field of organizational research that is worth consideration. In many organizations, insider research helps investigate the issue and explore the involvement of the person. For my future experience, I find this extremely important. I hope to conduct many types of insider based research within organizations, and this will help me see the value of subjectivity as the element of the research process and the key factor of research design.
Finally, the importance of researcher in the process of knowledge creation lies both in his ability to become and insider for some types of practical organizational studies and at the same time maintain a strong practice of applying multiple paradigms methodology. Hodgkinson and Rousseau (2009, p. 534) see this as the aim to ‘provide counter-illustrations of work where researchers, in a number of cases in collaboration with practitioners, have generated knowledge that is both socially useful and academically rigorous’. I have learned through these theories how knowledge is created, and how the research can become more valuable through being an insider and contrasting concepts.