Preparing a Master’s Thesis in Management Accounting: A Qualitative Approach

Juhani Vaivio

Professor of Management Accounting

A”Aalto UniversitySchool of Economics

Our Agenda

1. Getting started.

2. Going for theory / literature, writing an introduction, and preparing a critical literature review.

3. Introducing the case method and doing empirical fieldwork.

4. Interpreting field data, reporting a case-study and arriving to conclusions / managerial recommendations.

1. Getting started

• Something about our typical fears and frustrations in writing a thesis – and about overcoming them… This is not rocket science. If you are serious you can do it!

• The motivation: It is not merely about getting a degree. It is about developing perception, thinking and argumentation: It is an intellectual investment ”for life”!

• The thesis is a challenging, somewhat unstructured and messy task – a ”jump into the unknown”.

”Tolerance for ambiguity” is needed… Prepares also for the complexities of business management.

• Choose a broad topic area and gradually focus your research interest.

– Topics arising from 1) theoretical literature 2) managerialist literature / business press 3) business practice 4) an a priori interesting company

– Common problems connected with initial ideas of a possible research topic:

Is this topic in the management accounting discipline? Is this too cross-disciplinary or in a theoretical ”no man’s land”? Can we really investigate this (often huge and complex) topic? Has this already been investigated thoroughly – or is there potential to say something new? Can I find any theory to support my interest? Is this merely a narrow practical ”study” in one location, with no wider significance? Can I really find these managerialist ideals in business practice – as an existing phenomenon? Can I find an empirical case company / companies to study this topic and get a good access? Is this topic too sensitive to become investigated?

• What is your scope - within your limited resources to carry out the study?

Are you investigating a particular management accounting ”technology” – like ABC, The Balanced Scorecard, or NPV calculations – or a set of different MA technologies?

Are you addressing management accounting in an entire organization – or in a part of it?

Are you comparing management accounting in different parts of one organization?

Are you investigating management accounting in several organizations – and comparing these?

Are you studying management accounting in several organizations in one industry or in multiple industries?

If you are studying management accounting in several organizations, which elements/characteristics in your study you assumed fixed – and which ones you assume would vary? (e.g. I fix to study a particular MA technology – NPV in capital budgeting. I fix the industry broadly to metal industry. I vary the size of the firms You assume varying company size could have an effect on why / how NPV is used in capital budgeting processes, and explain to us these different organizational mechanisms.)

Are you investigating management accounting on one level of the organizational hierarchy (e.g. top management or the financial control –function) or are you addressing several levels (e.g. top management – division heads – senior divisional managers – junior managers – blue-collar workers)?

breadth vs. depth !

• What is your perspective on the topic area / phenomenon you are studying?

There is no such a thing as a ”neutral” - or a completely ”holistic” perspective!You always approach a topic / phenomenon from one perspective, or from a combination of a handful of perspectives.

And this leads you to theory…You should develop some preliminary ideas about your theoretical possibilities. Go to the library & browse journals!

What ”goggles” are you wearing for observing and interpreting a topic / phenomenon?

Are you studying a MA topic and relying on a particular stream of MA research? (e.g. ”I’m studying interactive management control systems in an innovative organization, relying on Robert Simons’ notion of interactive & diagnostic control systems”.)

Are you studying a MA topic not relying just on MA research but also on other theoretical traditions outside the domain of MA. (e.g. ”I’m studying interactive management control systems in an innovative organizations, relying on 1) Robert Simons’ notion of interactive & diagnostic control systems. But I’m also seeking theoretical support from literatures in 2) organizational learning and in 3) ”strategizing” in innovative contexts.

Are you relying on too narrow a perspective? Can you see enough?

Are you relying on too wide a perspective? Are you trying to see too much?

• What are your capabilities in the qualitative method?

If you are planning to do a case study or several case studies in a MA topic, you must have some

understanding about the qualitative method. You also need a basic understanding of the

methodological literature in the ”interpretive genre” (broadly speaking); methodology can be

understood as a bridge between philosophy of science and the employed method. See the readings of this course.

Do I have the social skills which are needed to conduct interviews in the field?

Usually the answer is yes!

• How is this topic – with this scope and perspective – contributing to my further career?

The thesis can be seen as an effort in personal ”brand management”.

Developing focused expertise, in a documented way.

A somewhat odd match: ”I dream of working in a big multinational company in telecommunications.

But I’m doing my thesis about MA in a local, family-owned bakery.”

But what is the structure of a thesis and how does it ”look like”?

• Typically, a sufficiently ambitious thesis is about 80-100 pages of text, 1.5 line spacing, 12 font size (usually includes direct interview quotes at 10 font size) + appendices + a bibliography (list of references).

• A recommended structure – with ”rough” relative weights of the chapters. Of course, traditions show variation here.

– 1. Introduction ~ 5 % What is this all about? Why should I read any further?

– 2. Literature review (theory) ~ 25% What do we already know about the topic – and what remains unknown?

– 3. Method and methodology ~ 5% How do we study this topic as an empirical phenomenon?

– 4. The empirical part: the case description ~ 40% An illuminating & rich empirical description, with excerpts from ”raw data”.

– 5. Interpretation / Discussion ~ 20% Back to theory! How does theory fare when set against the empirical journey? How should it be improved?

– 6. Conclusions ~ 5% Most essential theoretical findings (max 5 key points) are ”raised up” boldly. Practical / managerialist recommendations + further research needs.

Some practical pieces of advice in getting started…

• Finding the topic is an ”incubation process” that takes time. You will not arrive to a decision by staying in a vacuum! Look around in 1) journals and the business press 2) in the organization where you may already participate. And talk about about your project & your ideas with your supervisors and fellow students. formal research proposal?

• From the start, organize your thoughts on a piece of paper. You can also use Post-its and move them around whilst structuring your ideas. Prepare yourself for a non-linear writing process where you revisit many times parts of already written text, and craft it again and again…until marginal effort exceeds marginal improvement!

• Try to organize your literature from the start - first into broader and later into more refined categories.

• You don’t have to read carefully every article. You can browse journals, concentrating on abstracts and maybe reading the conclusions of some interesting papers. Take brief notes.

• However, some key papers in your study may require a careful reading 4-5 times, breaking the argumentation almost into atoms!

• With theoretical papers, remember that you don’t have to understand 100% of the argument – after all, you are not a professional academic…It’s OK if you understand 60% of what a scientific paper tries to say.

• Your literature / theoretical starting point must be somehow focused. If you have more than 100 journal articles on your desk the alarm bell is ringing…The final bibliography of a theoretically informed but focused study could have ~ 40-70 different kinds of literature references.

• Set yourself a timetable. And try to work in a systematic way, investing at least a little on your thesis every day. That keeps the project ”fresh” in your mind. With long breaks in your work, you always need a couple of days to ”catch up” again where you left your thoughts. But remember to let your brain also get some rest.

• You are not writing a Ph.D. –thesis. And nobody expects a ”Grand Theory” that wins you a Nobel Prize! Pick up some excellent / very good Master’s Thesis in the library and ask yourself ”Why could I not produce something similar?” a realistic benchmark.

Initial ideas on topic vs. actually studied topic: The usual story visualized…

STUDIED

TOPIC Theoretical perspective/s

Empirical

limitations

The ”blob” of your initial ideas…

2. Going for Theory, Writing an Introduction, and Preparing a Literature Review

• Finding theoretical and managerialist sources in…

Accounting journals (scientific)

Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS)

Management Accounting Research (MAR)

The European Accounting Review (EAR)

Accounting and Business Research (ABR)

The British Accounting Review (BAR)

Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA)

Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management (”Q-raam”)

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (”Triple AJ”)

Journal of Management Accounting Research (”J-Maar”)

Contemporary Accounting Research (”Caar”)

The Accounting Review (”Taar”)

Journal of Accounting Research (JAR)

Scientific journals in other disciplines and areas of knowledge which can be very useful – if not necessary. Look beyond the relatively narrow accounting discipline.

e.g.

Strategic Management Journal

Long Range Planning

Journal of Management Studies

Organization Studies

Organization Science

Academy of Management Review

Academy of Management Journal

Administrative Science Quarterly

• You don’t have to explore the entire history of ideas. Browsing the theoretical discussion of the last 5-10 years is sufficient. Ongoing scientic discussion ”filters”out” what is relevant – and what deserves to plunge into oblivion. The references in more recent arguments act as starting points for backward-looking ”detective work”.

• Some ”old” papers can - and sometimes should - become included in your biography as ”classics”(e.g. Hopwood, 1983). The high frequency of a citation suggests that this paper may represent an established ”classic” piece.

• Be selective. Ignore low-quality or marginal journals. But even in a quality journal – if a paper has been published more than 10 years ago and has been referred to only a few times – you should always ask: ”Why hasn’t this argument been used?” one ”market test” of ideas

• Beware of ”sloppy” articles: Instead of clarifying and illuminating, they obscure and confuse !

You may wish to - and often need to - seek also the insights of managerialist arguments, and look into recent articles in the business press.

But remember that managerialist journals (not to speak of business press) are rarely employing a double-blind review process and are not scientific journals.

They often tell about how things should be in business life - instead of trying to report how things are in business, management accounting included. They offer normative ”recipes, hopes and ideals” which often remain untested.

They use empirical ”illustrations” and personal accounts very selectively, often reporting instances of success rather than instances of failure. They use evocative language – which reads easily and is meant to persuade! Your thesis cannot rely on these sources only.

Managerialist sources: Business Press:

The Harvard Business Review Financial Times

Journal of Cost Management Business Week

Accounting Horizons Fortune

MIT / Sloan Management Review The Economist

California Management Review Etc.

Financial Executive

Etc.

Using the electronic library

• ScienceDirect / Elsevier• EBSCO Business Source• Scopus• ProQuest Direct• Emerald journals• JSTOR –The Scholarly Journal Archive

Search in 1) title 2) keywords 3) abstract 4) text 5) references.

Search by 1) a keyword or a combination of key words - management accounting and (or) strategy and (or) control

2) an author/s

Limit search to 1) certain keywords 2) authors 3) sources (reviewed journals ?) 4) years of publication.

Look for a particular publication’s references (What is the theoretical anchoring?)

Look where a particular publication has been cited (”Cited by”).

Try to spot cross-referencing in authors. Discovery of research traditions & clusters of research work.

Other literature sources:

• Books

– Dissertations!

– Textbooks

– Handbooks

– Theoretical presentations

– Essay / article collections

– Memoirs

– Biographies

– Business & corporate histories

• The internet

– The reliability & quality of these sources is a key consideration.

– Universities, ”think-tanks”, professional associations etc.

Writing an introduction

• You can start by writing the introduction. But the introduction & the title may be last things you ”polish” before finally submitting your thesis. You can finetune your ”promise” to the last hour – knowing what you actually can deliver by then…Never build expectations which you cannot meet!

• The introduction offers:

1) A rationale for the thesis: Why is this thesis being written? Why does it command the reader’s interest? What is new or exciting in it? Why should I read further…really? Selling your thesis to the reader: A hook for him/her! Appealing to novelty, urgency, practical relevance, proportions of the phenomenon, authority etc.

- This aspect of MA has not been sufficiently addressed in theoretical literature…

- This represents an new, relatively unexplored MA technology – in a specific context…

- This empiricial setting is worth exploring in terms of MA, because…

- This is an important managerial problem that countless CFOs face in their work…

- This is an increasing tendency in actual managerial practice, which may bring our existing theoretical understanding under new light…

2) May already offer a summary of the thesis and of its main findings / conclusions especially.

The whole thesis in a ”nutshell” for the impatient reader: a) the question b) key theory c) method d) case context & empirical storyline e) key findings all in a few pages!

3) Always introduces the research task or a specific research question and explains the structure of the remaining thesis (a ”roadmap” for the reader).

4) Style: Don’t overdo it! Avoid popular clichés and ”newspaper overstatements”. Adopt an inquisitive, somewhat distanced and factual tone instead – questioning rather than consolidating popular belief.

”For years, ABC has been widely adopted in engineering firms etc…It offers benefits etc. But is ABC really suitable to an engineering context where a high rate of product innovation is needed etc?”

Preparing a literature review

• A review of the relevant stock of existing knowledge in your topic area. What has been said? What do we already know? But you cannot trace literature back to the dawn of our ideas.

• Your theoretical framework may comprise several streams of theoretical / managerialist literature An appealing ”cocktail” of different theoretical / managerial perspectives which assist in capturing your phenomenon of interest.

• But you cannot become ”lost in space”! In the universe of knowledge you can travel endlessly from one solar system to another…On which planet is your thesis? Where is your focus? ”If you want to say something, you must leave a great deal out” (Joan Robinson).

• Why would you review literature which is not relevant for your study? Why introduce ”goggles” which you will not use later – to observe and to interpret your observations?

• The reader expects you to come back to the theory you have reviewed after your empirical journey – refuting it or refining it somehow! Do not introduce vast amounts of literature which you do not revisit later in the interpretation of your empirical data and your conclusions. An unfocused literature review is counterproductive.

• You may have to rewrite your review partly, after your empirical journey – deleting something / adding something.

• Should be a critical commentary of the relevant literature. Your ”reading” of this particular literatute, from your particular point of view & research interest. There is no such a thing as a ”neutral” / ”objective” reading! Every reading of literature is an interested and partial reading – an interpretation of what has already been said.

• Your literature review presents what is already known in a certain light…With the intention, that under this particular critical light the literature appears somehow ”weak” – as if it was calling for your study, as if it was asking for somebody to fill the ”gap” that exists in our present understanding…

• The more you critisize present understanding - and the bigger the ”gap” you point at - the more you ”promise” to address & fill in your study. Tough criticism means high expectations!

Preparing a literature review (continued)

• You can first give a broad and more general overview , a ”panorama” of the literature (”I know my terrain more widely”), and then identify the two or three most relevant streams that you will discuss in more detail (”But this is the hill where I stand…”). Tell the reader why you concentrate on these (”…for these reasons”).

• Try to contrast different traditions and streams. And try to evaluate their strenghts and weaknesses, with your own purpose in mind…

- How are they different? E.g. Level of analysis (micro-macro, status quo-dynamic), Theoretical underpinnings (economics vs. sociology)? Tradition? (European vs. North American) Method? (cases vs. broad surveys) Addressing different phenomena? (top management’s change agendas vs. blue collar resistance) Descriptive (how things are) vs. normative (how things should be)? Empirical work? (studies in big organizations vs. studies in small organizations).

- Can you find any similarities between different research streams? (e.g. They all seem to problematize… / They are equally cryptic about some aspects in MA systems…/ They are all survey-based / They all study only the CFO’s role)

• Ways of being critical - (but keep your purpose and ”promise” in mind!):

- Are the theoretical pronouncements offering credible empirical evidence?- Is their empirical evidence too limited, one-sided (”selected instances”) - or simply too old to remain descriptive of today’s dynamic practices?- Is our existing knowledge too general and approximative? A more focused and specific study is needed? - Is our current understanding too mechanistic / simplistic - ignoring the complexities of MA in specific organizational contexts? - Should we problematize popular views – which appear too sanguine and optimistic?- Do the managerial schemes & normative ideals remain uncontested by real life in real organizations? - Would current imperfect knowledge benefit from the fusion of different theoretical perspectives? - Can you find tautologies, exaggerated opinions, too bold generalizations, weak logic, too narrow perspectives, extensive jargon, mere appeal to authority, imperfect analogies or other contradictions in existing arguments?

3. Introducing the Case Method and Doing Empirical Fieldwork

Your method chapter

• The literature review can conclude into a brief summary of the most relevant literature (your theoretical anchoring of no more than a dozen key papers!) and close with a restatement of your research task or research question (already mentioned in the introduction.). Here you also define key concepts.

• Now - having again stated your research task - the question of how your study will be carried out arises. Time to write your method chapter. A poorly prepared method chapter eats on the credibility of the study and on the value of its argument.

• Your method chapter should tell the following: 1) Why the case / field method suits your research task. coming close to a phenomenon etc. 2) You are familiar with the methodology of the case / interpretive method See the articles. 3) You are aware of the limitations of the case method. ”I cannot generalize in a statistical sense.” 4) You know how to collect empirical data and have been well-prepared for fieldwork. 5) You have meticulously collected different kinds of data. data triangulation ? 6) Explain your choice of the case organization/s and your access. 7) How the data was collected, when and from which specific sources ? And why from these sources? 8) Address the validity and reliability of your field data. 9) Address questions of confidentiality, anonymity and removal / ”masking” of sensitive empirical data.

Preparing an empirical field study

• With regard to the research task, how many case companies are needed? One or several?

• Is this an in-depth study of one organization or a comparative, somewhat less intensive comparative study of several organizations? research economy & your resources!

• The criteria for selecting a case company / companies should depend on your research task and not on some other factors. ”A good friend of mine works there” or ”It looks like a sexy firm.”

• How do you get an access?- Friends or relatives in an otherwise suitable company. The problem with ”too close” relatives.- Negotiating an access.

• ”Selling” your study to gain access- Prepare the A 4 synopsis – in practical business language. Realistic time demands!- What does the company benefit from your study in practical terms? - The telephone call: How to introduce youself? How to manage ”gatekeepers”?- The ”Executive Summary.”- The formal confidentiality agreement: Who gives you a ”green light” to make your report public? What can you promise about confidentiality and ”masking”? You cannot start writing the company’s Pravda !- The advantages & disadvantages of the interviewees ”checking” the interview transcripts.

• Your already have access to a site – to do a ”practical study”- Redefine the boundaries of your study (without advertising it) - and make it into something bigger! - They do not know what they want: Help them ”discover” their preferences…- The problem of working for & studying the same organization.

Preparing an empirical field study (continued)

• Learning about the company and its business environment: What is the context here?

• Dimensions in the context: 1) national / cultural or socio-political 2) institutional 3) industrial 4) strategic / competitive 5) organizational 6) micro-cultural & micro-political.

• The ”desk” study: 1) business press 2) the internet 3) memoirs & other books 4) official company material.

You can find some nice ”clippings” which can become inserted into your case description.

• Who is your mentor in top management? You need the ”political support” if the going gets rough.

• Who informs the organization about your intensions? Become profiled as an independent researcher!

• Using informants: Current employees Old employees (with some reservations)

”Odd birds” & somewhat ”marginal” employees Financial analysts

• Do not start by interviewing the most important & busiest managers.

• Do a pilot-interview?

• Do not waste precious interview-time asking things that you can find out in other ways.

• A sufficient empirical preunderstanding about the company in its context assists and guides your empirical field effort.

• The problem of ”Going Native”.

The field interview

• The focused vs. the extensive interview study.

• Is this study a relatively static ”snapshot” or is it trying to capture a longer dynamic process?

• Spending enough time in the field. Are you doing an ethnography? Or is your case study merely a short ”site visit”?

• Interviewing the right person about the right questions. Seeking ”multiple voices” from the field!

• Problems: different ”ontologies” and conceptual frames. How do they understand your question? Tacit knowledge often remains tacit knowledge…

• Structured vs. non-structured interviews How ”tight” is your frame?

• The semi-structured interview questionnaire. • Contact with the person who will be interviewed. Remember preconceptions regarding academics in general.

• The advantages & disadvantages of posting the questionnaire beforehand.

• Max. 2 hours ! And max. 3 interviews per day!

• As a rule of thumb: In 1½ hours you can address 10 questions. Do not ”overload” the interview.

• The digitally recorded interview vs. taking notes by hand: pros & cons. Transcribing the interview.

• Entering the interview situation: 1) Explain your role, purpose & confidentiality issues. 2) ”Small talk” for relaxing. Do not dwell in scientific jargon! 3) Explain who has access to recorded material. 4) Sensivitive issues. ”You can switch off the recorder any time you wish”.

The field interview (continued)

• ”Warming up” –questions about the person’s context, and some facts about the person being interviewed.

• Tackling core themes. Explain what is your interest – but do not lead the interviewed person’s answers into your own premeditated alleys of thought.

• Be sensitive to ”emergent” themes and cues. But don’t be carried away too far into irrelevant topics & detail!

• Ask for examples, illustrations, metaphors and real ”stories” or anecdotes from practical incidents. Reward practical examples, spontaneous answers and ”everyday” talk in your reaction.

• Beware of: 1) superficial, ”official” talk 2) consulting jargon 3) too stylized explanations 4) vested interests

• In a subtle way, be the Hercule Poirot of your field site: Use ”probing” questions.

• Ask the same issue in another way. Try to spot contradictions and underlying tensions. What is not being told?

• Do not take sides! Remain as neutral as possible - but show empathy and understanding with small gestures.

• You can provoke a bit – but don’t put the interviewed person into a defensive mode.

• Steering the interview: 1) eye contact 2) nodding your head 3) small comments: ”Yes…yes” 4) ”Could we go back to…” 5) ”Oh! Tell me more on this!”

• Closing the interview: 1) Promise feedback & warmest thanks! 2) Ask for documentary material? 3) Ask who should also become interviewed – and can s/he assist in establishing contact? 4) Ask whether you can come back with some questions?

• Rush to transcribe if not digitally recorded !

Collecting other field evidence

• Documentary material

– Internal manuals– Memos– Company newsletters– Internal correspondence – Promotional & marketing material– Strategy elaborations– Management reports– Management accounting material, like cost analysis, performance reports and budgets

• Participant observation

– Being present in relevant management meetings– Introducing yourself & asking permission for recording the conversation.– How to behave in the meeting: ”Limited interaction / active control”– Avoid sitting silent as an ”undercover cop”!

• Data triangulation in field research

– Are the different pieces of evidence pointing at the same direction?– Seeking additional evidence until a possible contradiction is solved.

4. Reporting the Case, Giving a Theoretical Interpretation and Arriving to Conclusions

A first interpretation of field evidence: reporting the ”case/s”

• Do not rush to premature interpretations during your fieldwork. ”Wait until the dust settles”.

• Expect the ”desperation point”. ”I’m never getting anything out from this baffling jigsaw-puzzle.”

• Organize your data into a preliminary structure, e.g. by source / organizational level / issues addressed. You can browse your transcripts and start organizing data by copy-pasting interesting passages and moving these into specific subfiles you have created for certain topics or themes. e.g. Look for things people say on ”strategy implementation” and move to respective file.

• Start to build a rough ”storyline” – a first interpretation of the field study.

– A chronological order to the sequence of events or the process you studied?– Different organizational ”angles” to the MA technology which was introduced?– First the ”good news”, then the ”bad news”? contrast between light and darkness– A detective story?: 1) setting 2) people arrive 3) problematization: murder! 4) a mystery remains – but will be

finally solved in the next chapter, in your theoretical interpretation. – A ”grim story”of how good intensions ended up in a hell of a mess?– A success story?: Despite setbacks, with good luck & smart people it finally went according to expectations.

• You never find that 100% of your field data is useful and becomes a part of the description. It is possible that more than 50 % of the collected data is actually useless for the purposes of your study. A selection process.

The case report and film-making: some analogies…

• ”Life is a film where the dull parts have not been cut off” (Francois Truffaut).

• Different building blocks of drama and excitement: The background, the setting, the light, the voices…

• ”Bridges” in the storyline which move you into the next section logically, without too much effort.

• Hints and cues along the way - preparing you for a more fundamental point revealed in the end.

• Harmony problematization chaos struggle harmony restored?

• Probing beyond surface expressions, going behind a conventional or bourgeois facade – revealing a more complex reality (Ingmar Bergman, Lars von Trier).

• Where is the climax of the story? Is it the final introduction of a MA technique? Is it resistance breaking out in a critical function? Is it the discovery that beyond the surface the new budget systems sucks? Is it the fact that ABS radically restructured the product portfolio? Is it the new Business Controller entering the scene and redefining strategy? Is it the company’s leap to international success?

• Which parts in the storyline are at the core and which parts are merely in a supportive role? And some pieces of evidence can be there just as a frame or at the margins of your story.

• What is the red line in the description that moves the story ahead, gives it direction, holds it together - and keeps the reader awake?

• Could this be ”Short Cuts” (Robert Altman) in MA – from a particular context?

• Or is this ”Nightmare of Management Accounting Street” ?

• Avoid too pompous presentations where big expectations build up – but which fail to materialize. soufflé-effect!

Turning your own ”film”: Some points on how to write the case report

• Introduction to the organization in its context. Take the reader to the surrounding scenery and gradually to the spot where your story unfolds. Use also available documentary sources.

• Small remarks and observations ”electrify” the description: ”A real detective is at work here…”

• Different voices, from different locales give more credibility. a plausible narrative.

• Concrete detail – ”a smell of the earth”- builds a sense of verisimilitude to the description.

• You should intersperse the text with direct interview quotes in 10 font size, 1.0 line spacing as ”hard field evidence.”

• Explain briefly what the next quote illustrates to us. road-signs & motivation to the reader.

• You should not rely on sanitized interpretations, not introducing direct quotes. This produces a superficial and too distanced account, which cannot be evaluated by other researchers. Alternative interpretations of your data.

• Here and there, you can already use theoretical concepts. But do not overdo it – unless you want to be portrayed as merely verifying your theoretical preconceptions by field data! Loosing the ”emergent” empirical element. ”I believe all swans are white, and that is why I’m out to observe only white swans.”

• Weave in small contradictions and ”loose ends”. ”Life is complex and imperfect. And I’m not showing you a simplified version.”

• Let the data ”surprise” the reader. And introduce some tensions into the report.

• Remember that every description is already a first interpretation of your raw data – an arranged, censored, framed, focused, and purposefully oriented ”story” which aims at your theoretical findings. From a well-written case description the theoretical / managerialist findings drop out like ”ripe fruit”! The reader sees no alternative but to accept the findings & conclusions where you take him/her…The weight of the empirical evidence speaks.

A second interpretation: Producing a theoretical interpretation / discussion from the case report

• Read slowly your interview transcripts & other pieces of data – reflecting them patiently against your theoretical framework / literature review. Can you see any bigger patterns arising from the chaos? Do this already before you start writing your case description!

• After you have prepared the case/s description, forget about the case/s for a while!

Rising ”above” your empirical data and case description, starting to theorize. The small practical details important ”in” the case are less important than the bigger picture that arises ”from” the case. We are not generalizing in a statistical sense. But we are still looking for something which is beyond the particular case – for something more generally intriguing and being of more general value. Theoretical suggestions & building new hypothesis (positivists). All cases are unique. But are they so unique as not to share anything with other cases, in remotely similar contexts?

• Is your description in line with the theoretical framework? Corroborating existing theory. Or does it seem to stand in contradiction with your theory? A refutation of theory.

• Often, your description and observations fit ”to an extent” with theory: Some parts seem to fit with theory – but other parts do not seem to fit at all. A theory refinement is needed!

• Your contribution may well come from those descriptions and observations which are not explained by the theoretical framework.

”This theory is only partly OK. It has to be improved & refined in this way if we want it to explain and understand the studied MA phenomena in this particular context.”

A second interpretation (continued)

• Your empirical journey is primarily a medium for speaking back to theory! How you can improve or manage the particular case company / companies better is interesting but secondary.

• There is no such a thing as an ”objective” interpretation of the field evidence. Many interpretations can be written – depending which theoretical perspective is being adopted. What is your perspective and final interpretation?

• You don’t have to solve all of the contradictions in your data. Different organizational participants have different views of things and events…They represent different ”truths” on the studied organizational conditions, processes and incidents.

By contrast, illustrating and explaining the differences and tensions which are present in your case description can become your theoretical contribution!

• Contrasting the empirical field description against the theoretical framework is a time-consuming iterative process.

You may have to rewrite your literature review – deleting parts which cannot be used in the interpretation, and maybe adding some theory that really assists you in making theoretical sense of the descibed empirical ”storyline”. And often you also finetune parts of your case description…

• You also wish to redefine or articulate a bit differently the original research task / question – once you realize what is the actual potential of the description which you now have produced.

• In practice: Read your case description and your key theory ”side by side”. And scribble down your thoughts asap!

Writing a Master’s thesis: A process of interpretive abstraction

Your empirical journey in the field: All of the data…

Case report

Theoretical

findings

Conclusions

Distilling a set of conclusions from the theoretical findings / discussion

• From all of the study’s theoretically interesting findings ( ~ 10 ?) , you choose 2-5 most important and novel ones – and work these into your theoretical conclusions. You cannot be convincing by raising 10 different points! Concentrate and discuss in more depth only the most essential findings.

• This is definitely not the place to still remain strapped to the empirical twists, turns and details of your case/s! Now you are allowed to finally abstract and theorize fully – perhaps levitating a couple of meters above the ground…Your concepts & language as well as your argumentation are theoretical.

• Maybe you can ”package” or compress your 10 findings nicely into e.g. three main points ? clarity vs. complexity

• Try introducing 2-5 ”labels” on your findings. Conceptual development and theory refinement. These concepts can emerge from your empirical data, from the practical ”field talk” around the studied MA phenomenon that you have exhibited in your case description.

• Where do you position this study’s theoretical contribution? What did we learn from it – in a theoretical sense?

• Can you present a visual framework – e.g. a four-square or a process-model showing key developments on a time-axis? This can be an improved version of the one you found in your theoretical starting point. Point out where your contribution lies.

• Be bold, clear and specific – but modest – in your writing style. Do not undermine your argument by introducing it as a ”Grand Theory” or by being too cocky about your achievement. Do not ”blast” or arrogantly dismiss existing theory.

• Be explicit about the theoretical and empirical limitations of your study and the reservations you take regarding your findings. ”These findings should not become transported uncritically to other contexts…” ”Acknowledging the sensitive nature of the studied topic…” etc.

Distilling a set of conclusions from the theoretical findings / discussion (continued)

• Some specific, experienced problems in terms of validity & reliability can become explicitly articulated here.

• If you have provided a summary of your findings already in the introduction, it makes no sense to provide the same summary again in the concluding chapter.

• Your study provided (hopefully) some new knowledge or understanding to us. But this also raises new questions – letting us see new areas which remain unknown and merit further investigation. You should point out and discuss briefly potential avenues of further research (2-3). Try to be a bit more specific than ”This and this calls for further study”. How should it be studied? Which context or organizational locale could be rewarding as an empirical terrain for further efforts?

• You can reflect theoretically here ”in the name” of showing avenues of further research…still adding to your theorizing and showing off your intellectual powers as a researcher! Now you are, in a sense, ”free from the constraints of your empirical stock”. Some theoretical speculation is tolerated.

• Your conclusions chapter should be so clear and convincing, that anybody who starts reading your thesis ”backwards” thinks that something intriguing and genuinely novel really came out from this academic exercise.

• If you wish to write managerial recommendations or ”managerially relevant conclusions”, their place is after your

theoretical conclusions. And be modest before you start giving advice to real managers in the real world! You can appear as a ”Besserwisser” or smart alec.

• You are encouraged to produce an Executive Summary of your study to the case company / companies.