Chapter 18 & 19 - Conclusions and The Research Report Flashcards
Drafting Conclusions
- Keep your audience in mind
- Make claims
– Supported by the data
– Consider alignment with previous findings,
inconclusive results, limitations, and
suggestions for future research - Discuss implications
– E.g., for the client organization
Data
– From the Latin word dare, which means to give
– Participant responses, numbers, words, etc.
– Context free
Information
– Meaningful data
– Purposeful
Evidence
– Information used to persuade
– Supporting or contradicting a claim
Argumentation
- An argument is a set of statements that
includes:
– A conclusion (or claim) - which is the main point
the argument is trying to establish and
– Premises (“the evidence”) - which support the
conclusion
– A “good” argument has a conclusion that is
well-supported by the premises
– Perfect support = conclusion guaranteed by the
premises = a valid argument
A famous example of Argumentation
- All men are mortal (the first premise)
- John is a man (the second premise)
- Therefore, John is mortal (the conclusion)
- The above argument is valid
Ampliative Arguments
- In real life, the relationship between the
premises and the conclusion is usually less
than perfect - Not necessarily a bad relationship
- Relative strength varies depending on how
well the premises support the conclusion
– Good arguments support conclusions
– Bad arguments do not support conclusions
Toulmin’s Model
- The conclusion (or “the claim”)
– The starting point
– Based on probability vs. certainty - The premise (or evidence)
– The foundation for the conclusion - The warrant
– Bridges the gap from evidence to conclusion
– Provides the underlying connection between the
conclusion and evidence, and explains why the
evidence supports the conclusion
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Alleged certainty
Asserting a conclusion without evidence or
premises through a statement that makes the conclusion appear
certain when in fact it is not. For instance: ‘Everybody knows that
…’ or ‘Scholars everywhere recognize the need to …’
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Appeal to common belief
When the claim that most (or many)
people – in general or a particular group – accept a belief as true is
presented as evidence for the claim. For instance: ‘A lot of people
believe in autocratic leadership. Therefore, autocratic leadership
must be a good thing’.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Argument by repetition
Repeating a conclusion, research findings
or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting
evidence. For instance: ‘Customer satisfaction is quite low. Indeed,
the clients of organization XYZ are not happy. They are thus
unsatisfied about the organization’.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Blind authority argument
Asserting that a proposition is true
solely on the authority making the claim (extreme cases also ignore
any counter evidence no matter how strong this evidence is). For
example: ‘Authority X asserts that an ABC-policy is of the utmost
importance. That is why organization Z will benefit from adopting
an ABC-policy’.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Begging the question (circular reasoning)
A form of reasoning in
which a circle is created; the conclusion is supported by the
premises, which are supported by the conclusion. Like this, no
useful information is being provided. For example: ‘The reason
every organization wants to be agile is because being agile is
extremely popular’.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Cherry picking
(ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence,
fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective
observation, argument by half-truth, ignoring the counter
evidence, one-sided assessment, one-sidedness): When one
presents only a select evidence in order to convince the audience and other evidence that would go against the conclusion is
withheld.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Does not follow (non-sequitur)
The conclusion does not follow
logically from the evidence or premises. For example: ‘If all planets
revolve around the sun and the earth revolves around the sun, then
the earth is a planet’. This conclusion is incorrect on the basis of
the rules of logic.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
False cause
This argument equates sequence with causality.
Because event A was followed by event B, the first caused the
second. For instance: ‘After Bill became CEO, the company
enjoyed unprecedented growth and success. That is why Bill is a
great CEO’.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Hasty generalization
A conclusion based on a small sample size,
rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the
typical or average situation. For instance: ‘Organization ABC has
never invested in any marketing activity whatsoever. This
organization is more than a hundred years old and still flourishing.
Therefore, engaging in marketing activities really can’t be that
important’.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Regression to the mean
Ascribing a cause where none exists in
situations where natural fluctuations exist while failing to account
for these natural fluctuations. For example, ‘Naomi’s parents are
very tall, that is why Naomi will be at least as tall as her parents or
even taller’. The thing is that children of tall parents are usually
smaller than their parents (and children of small parents are
usually taller than their parents). In this fallacy, one ignores the
idea that in a consecutive series of measurements, the statistical
probability of a phenomenon will tend to the average.
INCORRECT OR FLAWED FORMS OF REASONING
Sunk-cost fallacy
Costs already made (effort, money or time) are
used as an argument to decide to continue with a project or
process. For instance: ‘We have to finish the project because we
have already invested millions in it’.
Managerial implications
Good data, good arguments, good conclusions
The interplay between data, arguments, conclusions, and decision-making is intricate and significant. A manager’s ability to navigate this interplay is crucial for making informed, effective decisions based on research reports.
Conclusion
The researcher’s informed judgement about (how) the
organizational problem (can best be solved).
Evidence
information used to convince someone of a certain point of view.
Argument
A set of statements that includes a conclusion (or a claim) and
premises (‘the evidence’) which support the conclusion.
Deductive reasoning
In deductive reasoning if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true. Deductive arguments are either valid or
invalid.
Inductive or ampliative reasoning
In inductive or ampliative reasoning the premises support (but do
not guarantee) the conclusion.
