The Creative Organization

Question: How tp Develop the profile of the creative organization? Answer: Annual reports issued by several organizations, and business and general media both hard copy and internet sources that were described in the later part of the chapter are not accessible in the public domain. Public domain information excluding audited annual report is mostly not objective but they are self-eulogizing in nature. Therefore, it is said that those are not acceptable and useful for university purpose. Information already exists in the public domains that are collected by the researcher on the given organization. A researcher either uses survey process or conducts interviews in order to collect that information. The survey process focuses on collecting quantitative data that based on the use of numbers. On the other hand, interview process focuses on qualitative research that follows use of words. There are several research methods are available that can be considered while doing the research. I reviewed all those methods and the literature of my subject to find out the m ost appropriate research method for my work. The most commonly used and famous research methods are quantitative research method and qualitative research method. In case of quantitative research, it is already mentioned that it focuses on the use of numbers. Mostly the positivist researchers use this mode of research method. Positivism research method is defined as a system that depends on information and apparent phenomena. In this type of research, the researcher primarily builds a hypothesis and during the research, the tries to either prove it or disprove it. Qualitative research method is a flexible and evaluative approach that works with research activity and advices the use of words. In case of interpretivist research, this mode of research and data collection method is commonly used. This interpretivist research is a system that tries to find out the causes of existing phenomena only. This research method is also called as Posteriori method not Priori. In this type of research, the researcher does not need to establish a hypothesis in this research method; however, the result of this type of research is noted as a hypothesis. According to the positivistic research approach, everyone caries the same system of meaning and our views are also same with the world. On the other hand, interpretive research approach states that each person cannot experience the reality and the in a same way. It can be said in other words that the same ontology is never shared at any cost. As mentioned by Neumann (1997, Page 70), The primary questions that must be followed at a time of an interpretive research are: What are the experiences faced by the people on the world? What meaning those experiences create and share? According to Blaikie (1993), the researcher, while doing an interpretive research, tries to make a pain that is actually is vague. From the quantitative research and thousand of participants and respondents, a researcher can easily develop required statistics. On the other hand, interpretive researcher spends a lot o time with a comparatively small number of people to evaluate a large number of data which will hel p him to establish a in-depth picture of the research subject. According Neumann (1997, Page 68), Interpretive research approach follows a practical orientation when positivism follows instrumental orientation. The primary goal of interpretive research is help the ordinary people so that they can manage their practical affairs in everyday life. The interpretive method is also known as a systematic approach of socially meaningful actions via direct observation done on people to understand how people develop and maintain their social worlds. One of the most important theories of interpretive approach is Grounded theory, which is developed from the group up, and then the data is evaluated and analyzed. Generally, researchers can collect knowledge from various sources and can apply them into abstract theories. In case of qualitative research, most of the times grounded the researchers use theory. According to Neumann (1997), however, this theory is not used always and it is only used when a theory is needed to build that will be relevant to the evidence. Unlike positivism, interpretivist approach combines theories such as grounded theory and phenomenology and deals with prearranged reality and recognize the subjective nature of social activity, the social establishment of reality and a deemed inescapable impact or influence by the researcher on the research. While doing social enquiries, the interpretivists mostly use approaches such as getable sources of information and unstructured interviews. However, this method also includes some limitations that include the impact of observer on the observed thing and the biasness of the researcher. On the other hand, the positivism research method is deductive research method. It begins with a hypothesis. The interpretivist approach is known as inductive as it does not need any hypothesis to commence. Therefore, it can be said that positivism is a priori approach while interpretivism is a posteriori method. Interpretivist theory is made from observations and commonly used languages to cover theories and different point of view. Based on the definition of grounded theory, researchers collect data and then they create theories from that data. This process is mainly established by observation and iterative analysis. These theories are tested because it emerges from the study and as the research procedure continues, the grounded theories are revised as well as reaffirmed. The interpretivism research approach allows the associate ti have some preselected research topics as well as some research questions. Therefore, the research questions can be formulated properly for developing th e responses of the interviewees along with the capacity of asking for clarification of ambiguous or unclear answers. At the same time, the applicant is at liberty to guide the conference into regions of meticulous apprehension to him or her, which can expand the parameters of the research work. This broadening of the terms of reference acceptable by the investigator stems from instigating with wide-ranging rather than very prcised views and concepts, with the objective of arriving at meaning through investigation and surveillance. On the other hand, in case of positivistic approach, positivism is recognized as the natural science approach. Positivisms are naturalism, logical empiricism and behaviorism. It has been seen that the researchers prefer to select quantitative data along with surveys, statistics as well as experiments. In this case, the researchers use exact measures and the objective research. However, these exist some criticisms that positivistic research workers favor the numbers over the people and might not concentrate wisely. Neumann (1997, pg. 63) has stated that positivism considers social science as one of the most organized procedure for combining the deductive knowledge with accurate experiential observations of the specific behavior for discovering and confirming a set of probabilistic unfussy rules that might be beneficial to forecast the general patterns of the individual actions. It can be seen that the positivists believes largely in reality, as reality exists and can be easily discovered as well as studied, keeping in mind that researchers might be flawed, but the reality does not. Reality has a prearranged outline that avoids arbitrariness. Fundamental outlines of social realism display constancy. Positivists consider that behaviour does not merely go after from wants. Cause and effect has an impact on actions in the genuine world (authenticity). Fundamental rules are governed by possibility and lean to hold more for great groups of people than for a personality. Main beliefs at work here are laws of possibility, namely Law of statistical regularity and Law of inertia of large numbers. As Neumann (1997) states it, positivism supposes that the laws overriding realism function to a scheme of stringent logic and positivistic researchers correlate these rules with the facts recognized about life using deductive reason. In positivism, clarifications arrived at must have zero rational disagreements and must be reliable with the experiential particulars. Given that the reason of my research was to recognize the distinctiveness of a pioneering organization so as to offer a benchmark against which any corporation can recognize its location on the evolutionary pathway to being pioneering, then the research strictures had to take in contribution by elected organizations labeled as inventive. Originally, it is assumed that my research would be positioned in one or other of the two major paradigms and favours either the quantitative or qualitative approach. Formerly, it is measured a quantitative procedure. It has been imagined the use of yearly reports of corporations scheduled on the Australian stock exchanges in combination with a mailed-out quantitative investigation. The preponderance of these companionships would not have come out on a list of pioneering organizations such as created by The University of Melbourne during its research component since the latters publication controlled the names of fifty corporations only. Mail out is one of the effective procedures in this manner, as this call for the information of both the numerical and the subjective data. However, it can be mentioned that the examination of the annual reports are requested as well as revealed the fact that the financial numbers were not alone sufficient enough to provide meaningful inputs to the overall development of the innovative profile. I accomplished that necessities by me for supplementary monetary investigations plus skewed answers to numerous questions in the broad region of the managerial surroundings would possibly acquiesce a poor answer. I therefore discarded the thought of a quantitative examination. The community sphere data set out in yearly news gave only a little division of the data essential for my research work. Consequently, I had to access corporations to locked answers to what comprised a pioneering association. The next question to be tackled was whether to inductively build up a profile of the pioneering association from untainted qualitative research work carried out on site, where there was small recognized a priori and interviewees were inquired to talk about novelty and to give their views on what made for inventive behaviour and results. The problems I professed with this approach was the time necessary to be used up by an candidate in contributing in this way but, much more prominently, th e plausible lack of adequate enthusiastic interviewees to form a creditable sample. At this point, it came out that neither of the two major paradigms and qualitative and quantitative research would serve up completely to bring in answers to my research inquiries, signifying that an assorted approach would be suitable. I determined that the most excellent approach for my meticulous study work was to appraise the literature to recognize qualities or characteristics of pioneering associations and to assemble these into a practicable border that I could employ in meeting Australian associations classified as innovative. It can be stated that given this assembly of innovative plus data supplied in the yearly report along with the interview, I could produce a proper corporation analysis of each of the participating corporation and inductively build up an innovation profile. As methodology, this was shaping up as exploratory research involving analysis of a number of companies, using a structured format for summarizing key data. This pointed to an meeting with contributing corporations where I was pre-armed with surveys and where the applicant was asked to reply questions. This assisted to make certain that I enclosed the essential ground without running out of time or overstaying my greeting. The questions I enclosed before the beginning of meetings were of such a nature as could be responded during the interview that is they did not involve the manufacture of numbers which would have had a twice difficulties in consuming too much time and containing to be supplied afterward. In adding up, my appraisal of the literature pointed to that modernism had its heredity typically in environmental background, which was mainly not reliant on facts and figures.