Doctoral Seminar Piura

* | *Dr. Christoph K. StrebFaculty of Economics & BusinessUniversity of Groningen, The NetherlandsWriting a Doctoral Research Paper -A Social Science Perspective

Introductory Meeting

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Teaching Aims

To provide you with insights about research paper writing from a social science perspective

To provide you with practical suggestions for the writing process

Most importantly, to provide you a forum for discussion and questions

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Questions Upfront

Who are you and what are you working on?

What do you expect of this brief seminar?

What is a (scientific) research paper?

What is your experience with scientific writing?

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *AgendaAn Introductory Thesis Example

What is Good Research? The `Standards of a Research Paper

Paper Content

Excurs: APA Guidelines, Literature Review and Rankings

Schedule of this Course (How are we going to do this?)

An Alternative Example

C.K. Streb 2011

Introductory Thesis Example * | *

C.K. Streb 2011

What is Good Research?1. Good Research is Clear and Precise.

2. Good Research is Systematic. 3. Good Research is Logical. 4. Good Research is Empirical. 5. Good Research is Replicable.

6. Good Research is Honest. * | *Adapted from ReportBD.com (2011)

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Paper Content Introduction and Research Gap: What do you want to research and why? Base this strongly on relevant (scientific) literature and sourcesResearch Question: State a precise research question and include proper sub questionsTheoretical Background:Elaborate on the existing literature regarding your topicConceptual Model:What theoretical concepts did you identify relevant for your study, how are they defined and how do they interrelate? Methodology:Identify and decide on the proper methodology to address your research question Data Collection and Analysis:Collect your data, analyse it, state the findings and discuss them in the theoretical contextConclusion:Summarize your findings in a broader scientific context and show, if possible, theoretical and practical implications

C.K. Streb 2011

Excurs: Conceptual Model (Example)* | *Xin, Dolfsma and Streb (2011)

C.K. Streb 2011

Excurs: APA Guidelines * | *

C.K. Streb 2011

Excurs: Literature Review * | *Brereton, Kitchenham, Budgen, Turner and Khalil (2007)

C.K. Streb 2011

Excurs: Literature Review * | *Streb and Gupta (2010)

C.K. Streb 2011

Excurs: Journal Rankings * | *

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Criteria for evaluating research questionsBe clear (to you and others)Be researchable Connect with established theory and researchSub -questions must be linked to each otherHave potential for making a contribution to knowledgeBe neither too broad nor too narrow Bryman & Bell (2007)

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *What, Why, and How framework Watson (1994)What?What puzzles, intrigues me?What do I want to know more about?Why?Will that be enough to interest others?Is it a contribution to knowledge?How? - ConceptWhat can I bring together for a basic conceptual model to guide my research?How? - PracticalHow can I gain access to (information) sources?Methodology?

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Questions to ask when evaluating research Is the research gap logical and clear to the non-specialist reader?Is it worth being researched and will add additional knowledge?Is it based on sound theory?Is it precise and focused? Does the research question appropriately address the research gap? (Do the sub-questions follow this logically?)Is the proposed issues, variables, etc. researchable (in terms of constructs, time, effort, )? Does the chosen methodology fit the research goal? Is the approach and the conceptual framework well connected with established theory and research?

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *How are we going to do this?You will work in peer-review teams of 3 people each.It will be your task to critically assess and discuss the research paper drafts of your fellow team mates and to provide honest, critical and constructive written feedback about their work.To do so, you need to organize yourselves in teams and exchange your material. You can prepare your peer-review by yourself, but you should meet at least once before our next meeting and exchange within your group what are the common findings, critics and suggestions. During our next meeting each group should briefly present their results to the overall group.

* | *Your Questions?

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Aging: Example GermanySource: Statistisches Bundesamt

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *1950197520052050Country -AgeCountry -AgeCountry -AgeCountry -AgeSource: United Nations Secretariat (2005)Germany: 47,41. Austria35.82. Channel Islands35.73. Belgium35.64. Germany35.45. Luxembourg35.06. United Kingdom34.67. France34.58. Sweden34.39. Switzerland33.310.Norway32.71. Germany35.42. Sweden35.33. Latvia34.84. Channel Islands34.65. Luxembourg34.46. Hungary34.27. Belgium34.18. Estonia34.19. Bulgaria34.010.United Kingdom33.9

1. Japan42.92. Italy42.33. Germany42.14. Finland40.95. Switzerland40.86. Belgium40.67. Croatia40.68. Austria40.69. Bulgaria40.610.Slovenia40.2

1. China, Macao54.42. Republic of Korea53.93. Martinique53.04. Italy52.55. Japan 52.36. Singapore52.17. Slovenia51.98. Ukraine51.99. Slovakia51.810.Lithuania51.7

Aging: An International Comparison

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Aging: The Netherlands Source: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/dossiers/vergrijzing/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-085-pb1.htm

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Aging Workforce Management Study: Background The demographic change in society is affecting the age composition of the available workforce for organizations 01002003004005006007008009001517192123252729313335373941434547495153555759616365PeopleAge

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *20022010PeopleAgeDirect Workforce 39,0 46,5Indirect Workforce 42,3 49,1Employees 43,6 50,3Average. ()40,3 47,5Workforce Mercedes-Benz Plant BremenSource: Daimler BremenAging Workforce Management Study: Daimler AG

Diagramm1

00

00

00

00

90

630

690

660

860

1050

1300

1970

2797.9

31155.3

30960.7

29659

33476.1

37593.4

458114.8

526174.3

614247.4

697276

696275.1

806264.2

851298.4

767335.1

843408.5

691470.1

639548.5

560621.3

526619.8

467718.2

388759.9

380686.2

359753

304619.4

337571.9

302501.3

268472.3

227419.7

207347.8

162342.6

125321.6

114272

68302.9

62272

42241.7

25204.2

26186

100

20

00

2002

2010

AB VChart

Altersstrukturen der aktiven Belegschaft von 2002 und 2010

Bereich: Standort BREMEN

Durchschnittsalter200240.3JahreSimulationsprmissen:

Unterstellt: Fluktuation, Rentenaustritt (63)

Durchschnittsalter201047.5Jahre

Aufsatzpunkt: Jahresendstand 2002

2002neu

2010alt

Standort BREMENBereich

40.28Schnitt 1

47.52Schnitt 2

M:\P\BB_NEU\BB-SC-Team\Aging Workforce\Altersstruktur\Simulationen2002\[W67 2002_2010_ohne Man (Hi).xls]AB VChart37797

AB VChart

00

00

00

00

90

630

690

660

860

1050

1300

1970

2797.9

31155.3

30960.7

29659

33476.1

37593.4

458114.8

526174.3

614247.4

697276

696275.1

806264.2

851298.4

767335.1

843408.5

691470.1

639548.5

560621.3

526619.8

467718.2

388759.9

380686.2

359753

304619.4

337571.9

302501.3

268472.3

227419.7

207347.8

162342.6

125321.6

114272

68302.9

62272

42241.7

25204.2

26186

100

20

00

&L&BDaimler-Benz AG Werk Bremen Vertraulich&B&C&D&RSeite &P

2002

2010

DIR VChart

Altersstrukturen Direkte Arbeiter von 2002 und 2010






Parameter

2002alt

2010neu


46.52Schnitt 1

39.04Schnitt 2


2010

2002

Verteilung aktiven Belegschaft pro Lebensalter; Kpfe

DIR VChart

00

00

00

00

80

510

500

420

600

640

980

1580

2327.1

26445.3

25444.4

23037.3

25753.3

27456.8

36687

410140.3

482205.9

566234.4

554225.5

644204.2

654228.1

575243.2

613324.9

483364

431427.9

362502.4

334491.8

271571.7

218580.6

204510.4

193544.2

172428.8

166382.6

154321.4

129296.5

109240.6

95193.5

74181.1

55171.3

43152.7

30147.4

33136.7

17114.5

1296.8

984.3

60

10

00


2002

2010

IND VChart

Altersstrukturen Indirekte Arbeiter von 2002 und 2010






Parameter

2002alt

2010neu


42.28Schnitt 1

49.06Schnitt 2


2002

2010

Verteilung Direkte Arbeiter pro Lebensalter; Kpfe

2002

2010

IND VChart

00

00

00

00

10

120

150

110

170

220

230

270

290.8

2810

2512.5

279.2

2914.2

4118.3

3719.2

4222.5

4924.2

5523.3

6720.8

7222.5

7924.2

6834.2

9630.8

7335

8340.8

8245.9

6855.9

7360

7165.9

6056.7

7380

5960.9

6969.2

5568.4

5056.7

4760.9

4659.2

3050

2960.9

2849.2

1257.5

1645.9

1041.7

639.2

438.3

10

00

00


2002

2010

ANG VChart

Altersstrukturen Angestellte von 2002 und 2010






Parameter

2002alt

2010neu


43.61Schnitt 1

50.34Schnitt 2


2002

2010

Verteilung Indirekte Arbeiter pro Lebensalter; Kpfe

2002

2010

ANG VChart

00

00

00

00

00

00

40

130

90

190

90

120

180

190

303.8

3912.5

488.6

6018.3

558.6

7411.5

8317.3

7618.3

7528.8

9037.5

11846.1

12457.7

13452.8

13571.1

12579.8

11673

12472.1

12386.5

99113.4

116119.1

93128.8

73129.7

102120.1

93111.5

89119.1

71118.2

6695.1

58111.5

4189.4

4370.1

2698

1389.4

1585.5

768.2

1363.4

30

10

00


2002

2010

2002

2010

Verteilung Angestellte pro Lebensalter; Kpfe

MBD0015FF40.doc

Personal

Personal- und Arbeitspolitik

MBD00181C94.doc

Personal


MBD00182AFA.doc

Personal


MBD00160718.doc

Personal


C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Aging Workforce Management Study: Core Issues

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *More Constrained Workers 01002003004005006007008009001517192123252729313335373941434547495153555759616365PeopleAgeAging Workforce Management Study: Core Issues

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Exploring aging workforce management and clarifying fundamental conceptsSynthesisFundamental insights and seminal results that provide new potential research streams in the field of aging workforce management

Article ISecondary and empirical research findings on the aging workforce adopting a business management perspective (in theory and practice)Specific Objective Methodology Finding

C.K. Streb 2011

* | *Aging Workforce Management Study: Findings

* | *Succes!

My email:[email protected]

***

Doctoral Seminar Piura

Documents

Transcript of Doctoral Seminar Piura