Doctoral Research Work in Strategic Management: Perspectives for Executives & Part-time Candidates.
| Author | Bhattacharyya, Som Sekhar |
Introduction
Doctoral studies are unlike others like Under-Graduate (UG), Graduate (G) and Post -Graduate (PG) studies (Shambaugh, 2000; Bedeian, Cavazos, Hunt & Jauch, 2010). This stems from a number of factors such as UG /G /PG studies are structured and there is relatively restricted scope of theoretical or methodological self-exploration by the candidates (Lindsay, Breen & Jenkins, 2002; Balster, Pfund, Rediske & Branchaw, 2010). This is specially so at UG and graduate levels (Dong, 1998). Beyond UG, G and PG studies lies doctoral degree and at the doctoral level, there is both a phase of structured knowledge gathering as well as the subsequent phase of knowledge creation (Park, 2005). The knowledge creation part arrives post the knowledge reception stage (Hayton, 2015; Hasrati & Street, 2009). However, a doctoral program might vary (Kara, 2018; Robins & Kanowski, 2008) as depicted in fig.1.
What one needs to remember is that there are two parts in doctoral work; knowledge gathering and knowledge creation (Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007). This could be sequential or move in parallel in an iterative fashion (Heracleous & Mekkaoui, 2018; Hayton, 2015; Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007). However, independent of the structure of the doctoral program in management a new entrant is often confronted with the quest for seeking a path to go about the doctoral program (Grover, 2007; Heracleous & Mekkaoui, 2018; Kara, 2015). What is an appropriate mechanism of knowledge creation is a quest that is unknown to most candidates (Woodhouse, 2015; Hayton, 2015; Mewburn, 2012; Morrell, 2018).
Context of Executives Undertaking Part-time Doctoral Research
Working professionals enrolling for doctoral program often have had a break from formal academic programs (UG/G/ PG) because of their working life (Cross, 2014; Koehler, et al., 2013). Such students often feel much burdened (with the impending study load) and very perplexed (regarding what is expected as outcome of doctoral program which is different from other programs) (Grover, 2007; Kara, 2015). Doctoral programs in Strategic Management (SM) are often pursued by working executives in many parts of the world (Cross, 2014; Koehler, et al., 2013). Working executive doctoral programs are good in the sense that the experiential knowledge (from the world of practice specially relating to SM) collide with theoretical knowledge base (Banerjee & Morley, 2013). This is a potent concoction for both theory development (inductively thinking) in the field of SM as well as for influencing SM practice (which management academics are often perceived to lack off) (Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007). Thus, a robust doctoral program on SM for working professionals is a necessity for healthy relevant knowledge creation in the field (Tushman & O'Reilly III, 2007). For a good doctoral program on SM to progress in a wholesome manner, during the program initiation stage a roadmap needs to be provided (Cooper, Junginger & Lockwood, 2009). This perspective roadmap provided to doctoral students would help them to comprehend where they stand presently and where they are expected to move on to. The next section deliberates upon this aspect.
Roadmap
Students admitted to a SM doctoral program carries with them some knowledge as an individual (Kara, 2018; Cross, 2014). This is a mix of theoretical knowledge in SM as well as professional experience in SM (Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007; Koehler, et al., 2013). To provide them a road map the author conceptualized a matrix depicted as fig.-2.
In fig.-2, there are two dimensions on knowledge level in SM. These being the knowledge base of the newly inducted doctoral student and the knowledge base of the other (established) SM scholars. There are two phases, firstly, what is known, i.e. what candidate and/or what others know. Secondly, what is unknown, i.e. what the candidate and/or what others don't know. This, thus, can be conceptualized in to a 2*2 matrix with four distinct states. State-I, the start phase is the beginning of the doctoral journey. At this stage the newly inducted doctoral student carries with him or her a certain body of SM domain knowledge (known to self) (Kara, 2015; Cross, 2014). This of course had been created by other SM scholars in the domain of SM knowledge (Hayton, 2015; Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007). This is mostly based upon SM text books, reviews, empirical articles on SM, the new doctoral student had read during UG/G/PG courses on SM and related subjects (Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007; Boyd, Crook, Le & Smith, 2019). For working executives this SM knowledge base of know-know (as we term it here) is a contextually relative affair (Mewburn, 2012; Morrell, 2018). Certain new doctoral scholars who had undergone master's program in management recently or specifically with concentration on SM (having undergone a large pool of elective subjects on SM), would probably be more exposed to the current state of knowledge in SM subject domain (Woodhouse, 2015; Hayton, 2015; Mewburn, 2012; Morrell, 2018; Kara, 2015). Whereas the ones who had a gap of 7-10 years subsequent to UG/ G/PG courses would find themselves less conversant with the latest SM theoretical literature base (Cross, 2014; Koehler, et al., 2013). However, such doctoral newbies would be very well aware regarding the practicalities of SM practices (Banerjee & Morley, 2013; Shapiro, Kirkman & Courtney, 2007). Thus, the insights would be pivotal in their doctoral level research journey (Boyd, Crook, Le & Smith, 2019). In a nutshell, at state-I, every individual already is endowed with his or her own level of knowledge and understanding (Mewburn, 2012; Kara...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
