Introduction - files.transtutors.com€¦ · Web viewThe principle aim of this investigation is to critically examine the impact the BM’s organisationstrategy has on the innovation

Research Methods for Business and Management: MOD001105ARUSID: Coursework B

EXAMPLE of

Research Methods for Business and ManagementCoursework B: Research Proposal

Research Methods for Business and ManagementCoursework B: Research Proposal

Title: An Investigation into the Role Corporate Strategy plays on the Innovation Process for Digital Engagement at the British Museum.

Anglia Ruskin SID: Module: Research Methods for Business and ManagementModule Code: MOD001105Course: MBA (advanced entry)

Word count: 2,484

Page of


Table of Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................4

1.1. Research Aim..........................................................................................................4

1.2. Research Questions..................................................................................................4

1.3. Research Objectives and Hypothesis.........................................................................5

2. Literature Overview............................................................................................................7

2.1. The Importance of Digital Engagement for Museums.................................................7

2.2. Defining Innovation and Creativity...........................................................................8

2.3. Context for the Not-for-profit Sector and Museums....................................................8

2.4. Factors Influencing the Innovation Process................................................................9

2.5. Towards a Conceptual Framework............................................................................10

3. Research Design and Methodology......................................................................................11

3.1. Type of Investigation................................................................................................11

3.2. Sampling Method.....................................................................................................11

3.3. Data Collection Method............................................................................................11

3.4. Accessibility Issues..................................................................................................12

3.5. Reliability, Validity and Generalizability...................................................................13

3.6. Ethical Issues...........................................................................................................13

3.7. Data Analysis Plan...................................................................................................15

3.8. Research Limitations................................................................................................15

3.9. Timetable................................................................................................................16

4.Anticipated Findings................................................................................................................16

5. References..........................................................................................................................17

5.1. Articles...................................................................................................................17

5.2. Books......................................................................................................................18

5.3. Websites..................................................................................................................18

5.4. Other References to be Reviewed..............................................................................19

5.4.1. Articles..........................................................................................................19

5.4.2. Books............................................................................................................20

5.4.3. Websites........................................................................................................20

Appendix A: Key Definitions.......................................................................................................21

Appendix B: Research Process.....................................................................................................22

Page of


Appendix C: Analysis of Potential Sampling Techniques...............................................................25

Appendix D: The British Museum Code of Good Research Practice...............................................26

Appendix E: Draft Participant Information Sheet..........................................................................31

Appendix F: Draft Participant Informed Consent Form..................................................................33

Appendix G: Stakeholder Analysis...............................................................................................34

Appendix H: Stakeholder Risk Register........................................................................................35

Appendix I: Proposed Research Study Timetable..........................................................................36

Appendix J: Proposed Structure...................................................................................................41

Page of


1. Introduction

This proposal outlines the intended research methodology to address the question on page

one. The study will investigate the relationship between the corporate strategy and the

process for innovation for digital engagement at the British Museum (BM). It will question

how the strategy is understood by staff at the museum; how the museum strategy and

innovation process for digital engagement are linked; and if there are any other influencing

factors.

1.1. Research Aim

The principle aim of this investigation is to critically examine the impact the BM’s

organisationstrategy has on the innovation process for digital engagement.

1.2. Research Questions

In order to respond to the study’s title, the following questions will be answered through

primary and secondary source research, analysis and literature review.

What is the BM’s strategy? How was it developed? How do staff understand it? What

is the relationship between strategy and innovation?

What is digital engagement in museums? Why is it important for the future?

What is the innovation process? What process is adopted for digital-engagement

related innovation? Are staff aware of the process? What is their understanding of it?

What is the staff perception of how strategy influences the innovation process for

digital engagement? Do they believe other factors are involved? What are these?

These questions may evolve during the course of the research. The reality of the situation

being studied will likely be affected by the act of the research and investigation (Collis,

2009).

Page of


1.3. Research Objectives and Hypothesis

To further clarify the title of the study and aim, and to focus the research,objectives and

hypotheses have been identified andare summarised in Table1.

Page of


Table 1: Research Framework – Objectives, Hypotheses, Methodology and Analysis.Objective Proposition Hypothesis Methodology Analysis

Identify the organisation strategy, how it has been developed and how this affects the innovation process.

Literature review so far suggests that for innovation to be successful there has to be a shared vision and strategy for the organisation.

H1: There is a unified understanding of the strategy by staff involved in digital engagement activities.

Interview Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview data.

H2: This strategy and how it is understood by staff affects the innovation process.

Interview Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview data.

Review the innovation process.

Literature review so far suggests that for innovation to be successful, necessary processes have to be in place and there has to be a shared vision for the organisation. However, there may not be a shared understanding of what innovation is.

A process to support innovation at the museum exists, but it may not be formalised or understood by individuals managing or implementing digital-engagement related activities.

H3: There is an innovation process to support digital engagement activities.

Interview; secondary data review; systematic review of policy process and procedures.

Triangulation and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data from interviews, secondary sources and systematic review or organisation documents.

H4: There is not a unified understanding of the innovation process.

Interview; secondary data review; systematic review of policy process and procedures.


Determine if other factors impact the innovation process.

Literature review so far has suggested that there a multiple factors influencing the innovation process, depending on the organisation, sector and type of innovation.

H5: Other factors impact the innovation process.

Interview; secondary data review (digital engagement stats, figures and reports); systematic review of policy process and procedures.


Determine the level or degree to which organisation strategy impacts the innovation process.

Literature review so far suggests that although it is essential for there to be a shared organisation vision and strategy for innovation to happen, and that an emergent approach to strategy is favourable to support innovation, there are multiple factors influencing its management and adoption depending on the organisation, environment, sector and type of innovation.

H6: Strategy has a limited impact on the innovation process.

Interview; secondary data review (digital engagement stats, figures and reports); systematic review of policy process and procedures.


Page 6 of 42


Page 7 of 42


2. Literature Overview

2.1. The Importance of Digital Engagement forMuseums

The use of digital engagementhas transformed how museums interact with audiences, but in

order to continue tooperate in line with their needs and wants, and to remain competitive,

museums cannot be complacent (Kotler, 2008). Using digital technologies and interactive

communication is no longer considered new or innovative –it is now a requirement for world-

class museums (Goodman, 2010; Atkinson, 2013; Museums Association, 2013).Museums

have to look to the future and develop innovative programs to ensure they can fulfil their

social roles.

Studies into future trends for museums (ARUP,2013; Kendall, 2013) suggest digital

engagementwill play a vital role inensuring museums can remain relevant and useful for

future generations. Their content and role in society put them in a naturally strong position to

do this, but they have to operate in the right circumstance in order to meet this requirement to

constantly innovate.

However, museums are under a huge amount of pressure to achieve specific outcomeswith

their programmes (e.g. sales, sponsor recognition, meaningful engagement, etc.)and the risk

associated with doing something new and untested is sometimes considered too much of a

jeopardy to maintaining ‘business as usual.’ Risks associated with the use of social media,

virtual environments and digital technologies can limit the opportunity for experimentation

and failure (Atkinson, 2013), butGoodman (2010) argues it will be essential for museums to

develop a ‘have-a-go’ attitude in order for them to keep up with developments, innovations

and visitor needs.

Page 8 of 42


2.2. Defining Innovation and Creativity

The literature on the management and adoption of innovation and creativity acknowledges

their value and importance in securing the long-term success of an organisation, but there are

multiple and inconsistent definitions of the term depending on its level, determinants,

process, context, type, source, driver, etc.(Hamel and Prahaland,1994; Von Stamm, 2003;

Trott, 2005; Crossan and Apaydin,2010;Keupp and Palmie,2012). This poses a challenge for

thisresearch topic, butwill be explored further in the main study. Crossan and

Apaydin’sdefinition is used for the research proposal.

Innovation is: production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added

novelty…; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development

of new methods of production; and establishment of new management systems. It is

both a process and an outcome.(2010, pp. 1155)

Innovation is not an event or an outcome, but a process from the initial invention/idea,

through to the delivery of the new/renewed/developed process or outcome (Trott, 2005).

2.3. Context for the Not-for-profit Sector and Museums

Another drawback to existing literature on innovation is that the majority of studies and

research has been conducted within the commercial environment. A few studies have

explored the topic with not-for-profit organisations, but as this sector is so broad, it can be

difficult to draw generalizable conclusions (Hull and Lio, 2006; Damanpour, 2008; Jaskyle,

2011). Despite the gap in the literature it is strongly argued that innovation is a central quality

of not-for-profit organisations and is key to ensuring they achieve their social missions and

levels of efficiency. A couple of studies have identified broad conclusions for museum

practitioners, but further research has to be undertaken to establish how generalizable studies

are for the sector (Lewandowski, 2013; Garrido and Camarero, 2010).

Page 9 of 42


2.4. Factors Influencing the Innovation Process

A key conclusion that can be drawn from the literature is that there are different types of

innovation, depending on the stimulus, environment, process and outcome. There are also

different factors or forces, including corporate strategy, that act on the process. Eight key

areas have been identified in this overview and are summarised in Table 2. These will be

explored further in the full literature review of the study and will be used to develop the data

coding plan and ensure generalizability of the research findings.

Table 2: Factors Influencing Innovation – Literature OverviewFactor Literature OverviewStrategy and vision Von Stamm (2003) argues there are three essential aspects of strategy and vision for

innovative organisations: clarity; sharedness; and attainability. Change can only happen when there is a vision of where to go and there is a felt need for that change. An emergent strategy is also the most appropriate for supporting innovation.

Leadership A motivating and inspiring leadership that champions experimentation, supports risks and allocates resources has been identified in several studies as essential for the implementation of innovation programmes (Von Stamm, 2003; Damanpour, 2008; Jaskyle, 2011).

Management Damanpour (2008) argues the relationship managers have with their teams can also encourage innovation and provide a positive environment for creativity.

Organisation culture

The establishment and maintenance of an organisation culture that supports creativity and innovation has been discussed extensively (Von Stamm, 2003; Jaskyle, 2011)

Risk and learning environment

Although Parsons’ argument (2006) that public sector organisations are not set-up to learn, experiment and fail and therefore cannot be innovative seems unsubstantiated. However Hull and Lio’s (2006) investigation into not-for-profit organisations, did find that a low tolerance of risk and opportunity to learn from mistakes produce a negative innovation environment. Garrido and Camarero (2010) also found that learning orientation has a significant effect on the ability of large museums to implement technological developments, organisational and product innovations.

Creative environment

Amabile’s (1998) argues creativity is the seed for innovation; therefore it is essential that the optimal environment for creativity is established. This includes motivation, resources and management processes (Amabile, et al., 1996).

Internal structures Jaskyle (2011) identified that structural factors such as decision making processes, rules, regulations and specialised personnel impact the type and success of innovation in not-for-profit organisations.

Resources Incentives, staff resource, financial support, systems, infrastructure and work pressures have been suggested across the literature as factors determining the type, level and success of innovation programmes (Damanpour, 2008; Keupp and Palmie, 2012; Atkinson, 2013).

Page 10 of 42


2.5. Towards a Conceptual Framework

Crossan andApaydin’s (2010) framework conceptualises the different types, process and

levels of innovation and what influences them. Determinants of innovation are consolidated

into three broad meta-constructs (leadership, managerial levers, business processes), which

result in two potential types ofinnovation – outcome or process – which can vary on several

factors.

The strengths of this framework are that it is the result of a systematic review of the literature

and it acknowledges that innovation is a complex, non-linear process with multiple

determinants and outcomes. This framework will be explored further in the context of not-

for-profit organisations, and will be used as a data coding and analysis tool for determining

which factors, in addition to organisation strategy, impact the innovation process at the BM.

Page 11 of 42


3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1. Type of Investigation

The study will investigate the hypotheses included in section 2.3 following a positivist and

deductive approach, allowing for objective, reliable and generalizable findings. However, as

it is a social phenomenon being explored, and the researcher has an existing relationship with

the organisations, the act of investigation itself may have an impact on the subject. Based on

the literature review, theories around the management and adoption of innovation and the

relationship this has with corporate strategy will be tested in the context of the BM. As time

and scope for the study are restricted, it will be a focused case-study in a time-bound period.

The full critique of other types of investigation is included in Appendix B.

3.2. Sampling Method

This study will use non-probability sampling design and a mix of purposive and restricted

snowball sampling technique. The majority of BM staff are directly or indirectly involved in

the management or implementation of digital engagement activities, but to use a population

sample would not provide rich or relevant data within the restricted timeframe. Instead, a

selection of staff from specific departments will be sampled. There will also be the

opportunity for follow-up data collection from related perspectives should the need arise.

This approach is suitable for small case-study research, but special care should be taken not

to overlook participants outside of the initial sample. Further discussion of the suitability of

different sampling techniques is included in Appendix C.

3.3. Data Collection Method

Primary data will be collected through face-to-face, semi structured interviews, which will

collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Interviews will be recorded andwritten notes

will be taken for quantifiable questions (e.g. scales, multiple choice answers), verbal and non-

Page 12 of 42


verbal responses. Transcripts and consolidated notes will then be produced. Secondary data

will be sourced through desk research, recommendations from participants and analysis of

organisation documentation, literature and reports.

This approach is appropriate for the study because it can be managed within a specific

timeframe, focused on the case-study, and it will produce a rich data set, suitable for cross-

validation and triangulation in analysis. However, it may be difficult to timetable all

interviews and it will be time consuming to transcribe the interviews and consolidate the

notes. These issues have been considered in the proposed timetable (Appendix I). In addition,

the presence of the researcher may influence the nature of response participants provide. The

Participant Information Sheet (Appendix E) should go some way to reconcile this concern,

but it should be considered in the analysis of data(Wilson, 2010).

3.4. Accessibility Issues

The greatest accessibility challenge for this study will be contact with staff involved with the

management and implementation of digital engagement actives at the BM. Permission for the

study has been sought from senior members of staff and department heads at the BM, but

staff turnover, competing workload pressures and willingness to participate in the study are

all potential barriers to gaining access to a sufficient and appropriate sample. These have

been identified as potential risks in Appendix H.

In addition to staff, access to secondary information (e.g. digital engagement figures,

statistics and adoption), to enable the triangulation and analytical critique of findings will be

essential. These will be less of a challenge to source as data is freely available through

internet research or is reported to the Department for Culture Media and Sport through

quarterly/annual reports.

Page 13 of 42


3.5. Reliability, Validity and Generalizability

The data gathered during the research will come from reliable and anonymous participants,

all of whom will be practitioners engaged in either the management or implementation of

digital engagement activities at the museum. They will receive no personal gain from

participating in the study and their involvement will be voluntary. Analysis of data will be

transparent and in a similar fashion to existing data analysis models used in the established

literature.

The research is valid in comparison to other findings in the field as it will explore the

relationship of one specific determinant on the innovation process within a case-study

example. The research will therefore be generalizable – conclusion drawn can be considered

in relation to the established literature.

3.6. Ethical Issues

Due to nature of the research topic and methodology,there will be a low risk to participants,

researcher, and case-study organisation. The followingstrategies will be put into place to

manage any general ethical issues.

Approval–written permission to conduct the research has been sought and the BM’s

Code of Good Research Practice (Appendix D) will be followed.

Participant recruitment – participation will be voluntary andparticipants

can/will:abstain; withdraw up until the final draft stage; be given an information sheet

(Appendix E); provided with time to ask questions; and complete an informed consent

form (Appendix F).

Data protection, anonymity and confidentiality– participation in the study will be

confidential. Individuals’ names and job titles will not be taken. Transcripts and

recordings will be filed digitally with password protection. The final report will not be

Page 14 of 42


made available for wider circulation and the data will not be used for future studies.

Relevant data protection regulations and requirements will be followed.

Stakeholder analysis – stakeholders for the study have been identified and mapped in

terms of their interest and power (Appendix G). A stakeholder risk register has been

developed to identify and mitigate potential risks and to support the management of

their needs during every phase (Appendix H).

Researcher identity and objectivity – the researcher has an established role within

the organisation and an existing relationship with some participants. In order to

maintain objectivity, participants will be clearly informed about the context of the

study, the identity and role of the researcher, how their data will be used and the

chosen methodology.

Data collection – data will be collected objectively and openly. If required, the

researcher may rephrase or prompt participants on particular questions if they struggle

with the wording or context. Ideas or suggestions for new participantswill be recorded

and, if necessary, considered for follow-up fieldwork. Ideas generated that cannot be

included in the context of this study will be noted for potential future research.

Data analysis – data will be analysed ina detached, rigorous and reliable manner,

following appropriate analysis techniques established in the detailed methodology of

the study. Findings between sources will be triangulated in order to test the

hypotheses.

Data presentation–statistics, findings, recommendations and conclusions will be

presented as they are and will not be manipulated.

Page 15 of 42


3.7. Data Analysis Plan

As the data collected through the research methodology will be a mix of primary, secondary,

qualitative and quantitative, a mixed approach to data analysis will be required. This data will

then be triangulated and cross-analysed to draw findings and conclusions.

Questions within the survey will be coded to support cross-tabulation, and a programme such

as SPSS may be used to support analysis. Due to the small sample and restricted timeframe of

this study, only a limited descriptive statistical analysis will be possible.

Qualitative data will be reviewed in terms of common categories, themes and patterns. A

coding system based on the findings from the literature review will be applied, highlighting

data that appears to be the most appropriate to the research questions. In addition to this, any

emergent or unforeseen patterns in the data will also be recorded.

3.8. Research Limitations

The main limitation of this study is the restricted timetable. The limited scope, sample and

methodology restrict the potential generalizability of the study and also the insight it could

provide on innovation in museums. The literature overview has highlighted that further study

and analysis is required, both in a theoretical and practitioner capacity.

The literature overview also highlighted the inconsistencies that exist in defining the central

concept of innovation. This may cause difficulties when engaging participants and guiding

them through interview questions, and also when it comes to applying frameworks during the

data analysis phase. These concerns will be mitigated during through further development of

the methodology, interview design, data analysis plan and participant information sheets.

Page 16 of 42


3.9. Timetable

The timetable for the study is included in Appendix I and is split into five phases.

4. Anticipated Findings

In addition to determining how the museum strategy impacts the innovation process for

digital engagement at the British Museum, this research will:

discover how embedded the museum strategy is in digital-engagement activities and

what understanding staff have of it;

highlight the strengths and weakness of the existing innovation process, what is in

place and what staff understand of its use and aims;

identify other factors that contribute or hinder the process of innovation;

recommend refinements of, or improvements to, the process; and

provide information that could assist in the development and/or management of new

organisation competencies.

Page 17 of 42


5. References

5.1. Articles

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. The Academy of Management Journal. 39(5), pp.1154–1184.

Amabile, T.M., 1998. How To Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review. September – October. pp.77–87.

ARUP, 2013.Museums in the Digital Age [Online]. Available at: http://www.arup.com/Publications/Museums_in_the_Digital_Age.aspx[Accessed on 30 October 2013].

Atkinson, R., 2013. After the Gold Rush. Museum Practice[Online]. Available at: http://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/14102013-mp-published-mobile-survey-2013-results [Accessed on 30 October 2013]

Atkinson, R., 2011. Developing a Social Media Strategy. Museum Practice [Online]. Available at: http://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/about-museum-practice [Accessed on 30 October 2013].

Crossan, M., Apaydin, M., 2010. A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies,57 (6),pp. 1154–191.

Damanpour, F., 2008. Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.19, pp.495–522.

Garrido, M. J., Camarero, C., 2010. Assessing the impact of organizational Learning and Innovation on Performance in Cultural Organisations. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 15, pp. 215–232.

Goodman, B., 2010. Social Work. Museum Practice [Online]. Available at: http://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/about-museum-practice [Accessed on 30 October 2013].

Hamel, G. and Prahaland, C.K., 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Review. July-August, pp. 122–128.

Hull, C. E., Lio, B.H., 2006. Innovation in Non-profit and For-profit Organizations: Visionary, Strategic and Financial Considerations. Journal of Change Management. 6(1), pp.53–65.

Jaskyle, K., 2011. Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in Non-profit Organizations. Pubic Administration Review. 71(11) pp.77 –86.

Kendall, G., 2013. Vive la (Technological) Revolution. Museum Practice.113(6), p.17.

Page 18 of 42


Keupp, M., Palmie, M., 2012. The Strategic Management of Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research. International Journal of Management Review.14, pp.367–390.

Lewandowski, M., 2013. How to Monitor the Effects of Managerial Innovation in Public Cultural Institutions. Active Citizenship by Knowledge Management and Innovation. Management Knowledge and Learning, International Conference 2013 [online]. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/h/tkp/mklp13/559-567.html [Accessed 30 October 2013].

Parsons, W., 2006. Innovation in the Public Sector: Spare Tyres and Fourth Plinths The Innovation Journal. The Public Sector Innovation Journal.11(2), pp.2–9.

Pes, J., 2009. Introduction Web 2.0. Museum Practice.47, p.39.

5.2. Books

Collis,J., Hussey, R., 2009. Business Research. A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. 3rd edition. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gill, J., Johnson, P., 2010.Research Methods for Managers. 4th edition. London: SAGE.

Greener, D., Dr. Business Research Methods. Available from: www.trcb.com/free-ebooks/business-and-economics/management/business-research-methods-157.htm. [Accessed on 1 November 2013].

Lynch, R., 2006. Corporate Strategy. 4th edition. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Trott, P.2005. Innovation Management and New Product Development. 3rd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Von Stamm, B., 2003. Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity. London: London Business School, Wiley.

Wilson, J., 2010. Essentials of Business Research. A Guide to Doing Your Research Project. London: SAGE.

5.3. Websites

British Museum, 2013. Available from: www.britishmuseum.org [Accessed on 1 November 2013].

Museums Association, 2013. Mobile Survey. Available from: www.museumassociation.org [Accessed on 1 November 2013].

Page 19 of 42


5.4. Other References to be Reviewed

5.4.1. Articles

Ahmed, P.K., 1998. Culture and Climate for Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management.1(1), pp.30–43.

Belloc, F., 2012. Corporate Governance and Innovation: A Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys.26(5), pp.835–864.

Bertacchini, E., Morando, F., 2011. The Future of Museums in the Digital Age: New Models of Access and Use of Digital Collections. International Centre for Research on the Economics of Culture, Institutions and Creativity (EBLA). Working Paper 5.[online]. Available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/utoeblawp/201105.htm [Accessed 30 October 2013].

Buschgens, T., Bausch, A., Balkin, D. B. 2013. Organizational Culture and Innovation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 30(4),pp.763–781.

Cooper, J. R., 1998. A Multidimensional Approach to the Adoption of Innovation. Journal of Management History.36 (8) pp.493–502.

Damanpour, F., Aravind, D., 2011. Managerial Innovation: Conceptions, Processes, and Antecedents. Management and Organization Review.8(2) pp.423–454.

Damanpour, F., Walker, R.M, Avellaneda, C. N., 2009. Combine Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), pp.650–675.

Damanpour, F., Schneider,M., 2006. Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers. British Journal of Management. 17, pp.215–236.

Dobni, C. B., 2008. Measuring Innovation Culture in Organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management. 11(4), pp.539–559.

Goffin, K., Koners, U., 2011. Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learnt and New Product Development. Product Innovation Management. 28, pp.300–318.

Hume,M., Mills,M., 2011. Building the Sustainable iMuseum: is the Virtual Museum Leaving our Museums Virtually Empty. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 16. pp.275–289.

Kahn,K.B.,Barczak, G., Moss,R., 2006.PERSPECTIVE: Establishing an NPD Best Practice Framework.Journal of Product Innovation Management.23, pp.106–116.

Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the World Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons.53, pp.59–68.

Page 20 of 42


Naranjo – Valencia, J.C., Sanz-Valle, R., 2011. Innovation or Imitation? The Role of Organizational Culture. Management Decision.49(1),pp.56–72.

Osborne,S.P., Brown, L., 2011. Innovation, Public Policy and Public Services Delivery in the UK: The Word That Would be King? Public Administration. 89(4), pp.1335–1350.

Proctor, N., 2010. Digital: Museum as Platform, Curator as Champion, in the Age of Social Media. Curator: The Museum Journal. 53(1), pp.35–43.

Ross, V.E., Kleingeld, A. W., Lorenzen, L., 2004. A Topographical Map of the Innovation Landscape. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal.9(2), pp.1–19.

Russo, A., Watkins, J., Groundwater, S., 2009. The Impact of Social Media on Informal Learning in Museums. Educational Media International. 46(2), pp.153–166.

Sears,G. J. 2011. Toward a Multistage, Multilevel Theory of Innovation. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.28, pp. 357–372.

Volberda,H. W., Van de Bosch, F. A. J., Heij, C. V., 2013. Management Innovation: Management as Fertile Ground for Innovation. European Management Review. 10, pp.1–15.

Wolfe,R. A., 1994.Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and Suggested Research Directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), pp. 405–431.

5.4.2. Books

Falk, J. H., Sheppard, B. K., 2006. Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Oxford: Alta Mira Press.

Kotler, N.G., Kotler, P., Kotler W.I., 2008. Museum Marketing and Strategy: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue and Resources. 2nd edition. London: Jossey Bass.

5.4.3. Websites

www.museumnext.orgwww.thelondonmuseumsgroup.orgwww.themuseumofthefuture.com

Page 21 of 42


Appendix A: Key Definitions

For the purpose of this study proposal, and at this stage of the research, the following definitions apply:

Corporate strategy – the organisation-wide plan or process that identifies the purpose of the organisation for a specific period of time and the steps or actions it intends to take to achieve that purpose (Lynch, 2005).

Innovation – “Innovation is: production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty…; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome.” (Crossan, 2010: 1155)Innovation process – the management process of all activities involved in the practical application of ideas for new or improved products, process, services or equipment (Trott, 2009).

In the context of digital engagement at the British Museum, the innovation process includes the following, but not necessarily in this order: the management of creativity and idea generation; experimentation, research and knowledge management; team and cross-function working; resource allocation; technical development and launch; and responding to the marketplace.

Digital engagement – in the context of the British Museum, this can have many aspects, including: the passive broadcast of digital content through websites, e-publications,etc.; in-display exhibits, and mobile device interventions (e.g. multimedia guides); and the transformation of digital content into social media to encourage sharing, discussion, debate and interaction.

At the British Museum, responsibility for these activities falls to the web, marketingand publishing business functions and can be broad in scope (e.g. in support of education programmes, collection management, public engagement, etc.). This study will focus on digital engagement aspects of temporary exhibitions at the British Museum.

Social media – internet or mobile based applications and platforms that allow any number of users to share information, generate content and engage in interactive dialogue (Atkinson, 2011).

Page 22 of 42


Appendix B: Research ProcessAdapted from Collis (2009), Gill (2010), Wilson (2010) and Greener (2013).

Research process layer

Options Strengths Weaknesses

ParadigmThe philosophy or framework that guides how research should be conducted (based on researcher’s assumptions about the world and knowledge)

PositivismAssumption that reality is singular and objective and therefore not affected by the act of research. Theories explain or predict the result. Belief that reality is independent from us.

Underpinned by theory, rigour and objectivity. Produces precise, objective and quantitative data and findings. Because it bases the occurrence of a social phenomenon on the

balance of cause and effect, it implies that examples can be predicted and also controlled.

Associated with measurable, quantitative methods of analysis.

In reality, it is impossible to separate people from the social situations they are researching.

Fails to acknowledge the impact people’s own perceptions – the subjectivity of the informants.

Requires a highly structured research design that may be inflexible to results and findings.

Fails to acknowledge the researchers own subjectivity. Only allows capture of data in a single measure, which could lead to

misleading findings.Realism/InterpretivismAssumption that social reality is in our minds and is entirely subjective and multiple in its interpretation.

Acknowledges that a social phenomenon is affected by the act of research and subjectivity of the researcher and researched.

Focuses on exploring the complexity of a situation with the intention of gaining an interpretation of the reality.

Produces lots of rich data.

Can only draw broad conclusions. Findings may have low reliability as they are only interpretations of the

reality. Findings can be generalised between similar situations and/or organisations.

Approach DeductiveThe concept and theory is understood and then tested by empirical observation.

Aligned to the positivist paradigm. Moves from the general to particular.

Can be inflexible.

InductiveTheory is developed from the observation of empirical reality.

Aligned to the realist/interpretivist approach. Moves from specific to general.

Requires a longitudinal study and lots of fieldwork.

Strategy ExperimentMethodology to investigate the relationship between variables. The dependent variable is deliberately manipulated to see the effect.

Researcher can eliminate any variables that are not being studied. Lots of different types and data collection methods.

Can be difficult to arrange and set up controlled environments. The focus is very narrow – only one or two variables. And person managing

the experiment controls. The artificial setting means that the real world is not reflected at all. Dependent on the quality of the researcher.

SurveyMethodology that collects primary and secondary data from a sample and generalises the results.

Several methods for collecting data Can be used for positivist and realist/interpretivist studies.

Can be expensive and time consuming. May require sampling to ensure there is a proportional sample of a

population surveyed.

Case studyMethodology explores single phenomenon in its natural setting using a variety of methods to obtain in-depth knowledge.

Uses multiple methods for data collection. There are lots of different forms or types of case studies. There are clear steps to conducted case-study research.

Can/should be conducted over a long period of time (depending on the research objectives).

Can be difficult to negotiate access to key data and/or informants. Research process (gathering and processing data) can be very time

consuming. Can be difficult to limit scope of study (time, informants, objectives, future,

etc.).Grounded theoryMethodology where a systematic set of procedures are used to develop an inductively derived theory.

Systematic approach. No dependence on existing theories or research.

Page 23 of 42




EthnographyResearcher uses socially acquired and shared knowledge to understand observed patterns of behaviour.

Interprets a situation in the same way the people within the situation would interpret it.

Provides detailed and rich data. Multiple sources are used and types of data are gathered. Research can gain first-hand experience.

Research takes place over a long period of time and is immersive for the researcher.

Requires a high level of access and trust between the researcher and the researched.

Researcher has to retain an objective position and opinion.Action researchMethodology for applied research to find an effective way of bringing change in a partially controlled environment

Focused on understanding and resolving problems within a given situation.

Can foster collaborative and mutually beneficial relationships for the researcher and the researched.

Involves the researched in the process so can lead more to consultancy-type relationships.

Requires full support of the organisation being researched.

Time horizon Cross sectionMethod of research to investigate variables of a social phenomenon (and in different contexts) over asset period of time.

Ideal when there are time constraints and limited resources. Data collection occurs once.

Have to select an appropriate sample in terms of size and representation. Can be difficult to isolate the phenomenon being studied. Does not explain if/why there may be correlation between results or across

studies. Pressure to ensure researcher has access in time.

LongitudinalMethod of research to investigate variables of asocial phenomena over a long period of time

Lots of rich data gathered. Requires smaller sample size than cross-section studies.

Therefore may be easier to form sustainable relationships and gain access.

Research can have some control over the variables being studied. Opportunity to use secondary data.

Long-term commitment. Time consuming. Expensive.

Data collection methodology

SamplingThe collection of data from a sub-set of the population.

There are lots of different types and ways (including probability and non-probability) techniques. These can be adapted and the relevant one adopted to suit the research methodology and needs.

Secondary data Saves time and money on conducting the research. A lot of accessible secondary data is available. Can provide a

global/local provide a global/local view point for study. Can be data rich and mix of research techniques and sources.

Data not collected with the study in mind, therefore may have gaps and not be completely relevant.

Can be time consuming to identify, access, collect, analyse and interpret secondary data.

Have to know what is available, where you can find it and that you have permission to use it.

May not be raw data. May be a cost associated with accessing it. Will be unsure of data quality and validity.

Observations Opportunity to gain first-hand experience of a situation. Have to be able to gain access. Researcher’s presence may influence the situation. Time consuming (establishing relationships, conducting the observations,

writing up and analysing).Interviews Can be structured and semi-structured.

Can be adapted and shaped to particular characteristics of the informant.

Generate lots of rich data. Can incorporate open and closed questions.

Findings from some interviews may contradict others. Subjectivity of informant. Can be time consuming, plus have to transcribe the conversation afterwards. Requires a stage of testing interview questions.

Questionnaires Provides rigorous and comparable data. Can incorporate open and closed questions. Researcher does not have to be present.

Restricted to the questions and formats of the questionnaire – no opportunity to probe further.

Danger informants may not understand the question/layout without the

Page 24 of 42




Can collect a lot of data simultaneously. presence of researcher. No control over the response rate. Requires an additional stage of piloting questionnaire.

Page 25 of 42


Appendix C: Analysis of Potential Sampling Techniques

Adapted from Greener (2013)

Sampling design Technique Implications for this research studyProbability– a form of random selection so that each unit in a population has a known chance of selection. These tend to offer samples considered representative of the population, and keep sampling error low.

Random sampling

The population is not large enough for this study.

Multi-stage cluster sampling

The population is not large enough for this study. The population is not geographically dispersed, so will not require the cluster approach.

Stratified sampling

The population is not large enough for this study. The population is not geographically dispersed, so will not require the stratified approach.

Non-probability– does not use random selection so some units in the population may have a higher chance of being include than others (e.g. may come down to proximity, access, connection, etc.)

Quota sampling The researcher can choose the respondent, but the population is not large enough for this studyConvenience sampling

Suitable for small sample requirements with specific interest/involvement. Results can’t be generalised for the population. Would miss data from informants that may require may effort to recruit?

Snowball sampling

Provides the opportunity to build on convenience and purposive sampling technique with follow-up opportunities and data from different/related perspectives that would have otherwise been missed.

Unpredictable and may require initial resource and time during the data collection and analysis phase of the study.

Purposive sampling

Suitable approach for a small sample and case-study research. Key participants can be approached based on the researcher’s understanding of their involvement

in the situation, past experience and interest in the topic. Other members of the sample population may be overlooked and important data missed. The researcher’s understanding of potential informants’ interest/knowledge may be incorrect.

Page 26 of 42


Appendix D: The British Museum Code of Good Research PracticeOctober 2007

Introduction The British Museum Research Board is responsible for ensuring good research practice within the BritishMuseum, and is responsible for ensuring that appropriate mechanisms are in place for dealing with allegations of research misconduct.

The BritishMuseum promotes a culture of honesty and integrity in research and expects and requires its researchers to adhere to the highest standards of research integrity. To facilitate this, a code of good research practice has been produced. This document sets out the principles of good research practice and defines the standards of research conduct of the Museum which researchers are required to be aware of and adhere to. The Code of Good Research Practice will be made publicly available through the BritishMuseum website.

The guidance contained within this document is based on the standard good practice as outlined by the Joint Statement by the Director General of the Research Councils and the Chief Executives of the UK Research Councils in December 1998, AMRC, BBSRC, MRC, legal requirements and professional practice issued periodically from funders such as the UK Research Councils and professional bodies. Similar Codes of Good Research Practice have been adopted by all UK documenting results; questioning one’s own findings; attributing honestly the contribution of others; leadership and co-operation in research groups; taking special account of the needs of young researchers; securing and storing primary data.

StandardsAll staff at the BritishMuseum will conduct their research according to the following Standards of Good Research Practice.

1. IntegrityResearchers should be honest in respect of their own actions in research and in their responses to the actions of other researchers. This applies to the whole range of research work, including designing experiments, generating and analysing data, applying for funding, publishing results, and when peer reviewing the work of other researchers. The direct and indirect contributions of colleagues, collaborators and others should be acknowledged.

Researchers are accountable to society, their professions, the Museum, the staff and students involved and, in particular, to the sponsor that is funding the research. Researchers are expected to understand and apply the following principles:

Plagiarism, deception, or the fabrication or falsification of results is regarded as serious disciplinary offences

Researchers are encouraged to report cases of suspected misconduct, and to do so in a responsible and appropriate manner.

The Museum expects all researchers to identify and declare potential or real conflicts of interest in accordance with the Museum Ethics Policy. Conflicts of interest may include legal, ethical, moral, financial, personal, academic or of another nature. Any perceived conflict of interest must be disclosed to your Head of Department or line Manager who will determine what further action should be taken. Please note, in certain circumstances, the above policy may also require disclosure to be made to other Museum Managers and/or completion of the register or interests.

Page 27 of 42


Areas of potential conflict might include:

Where researchers have an existing or potential financial interest in the outcome of the research

Where there is a private or private practice benefit significantly dependent upon the outcome of the research

Where the researcher's professional or personal gain arising from the research may be more than might be usual for research.

Researchers shall be honest in respect of their own actions in research and in their responses to the actions of other researchers. This applies to the whole range of research activity including, but not limited to, applying for funding, experimental and protocol design, generating, recording, analysing and interpreting data, publishing and exploiting results and acknowledging direct and indirect contributions of colleagues, collaborators and others.

Researchers must not commit any act of research misconduct.

Research misconduct includes:-

Piracy: the deliberate exploitation of ideas from others without permission or acknowledgement

Plagiarism: the copying of ideas, data, text without permission or acknowledgement

Fraud: deliberate deception, including the intervention of data, and the omission from analysis and publication of inconvenient data.

The Museum encourages all researchers to report cases of suspected misconduct, and recommends that they do so in a responsible and appropriate manner.

General guidance (for researchers at all levels) on avoidance of plagiarism and academic dishonesty is available from the Museum’s Research Manager.

The Museum’s approach to managing allegations of research misconduct is determined by the Museums Ethics Policy and Code of Conduct for Staff and disciplinary procedure.

2. Openness While recognising the need for researchers to protect their own and the Museum’s research interests, and where appropriate their and the Museum’s intellectual property rights, the Museum expects researchers to be as open as possible in discussing their work with other researchers and the public. Research that is sponsored must observe confidentiality of information and in particular respect commercially sensitive information and its dissemination. Guidance can be sought through the Museum’s Research Manager.

Researchers should be careful when discussing work that is not complete or has not been published. Furthermore, exchange of confidential information via e-mail is not recommended particularly if patent applications are anticipated.

Researchers have a duty to disseminate their research as widely as possible, especially to those who will benefit directly from it, and to publish in places where their research will have

Page 28 of 42


the greatest impact, but if sponsored, must observe confidentiality of information and in particular commercially sensitive information.

Once results have been published, researchers should make available relevant data and materials to other researchers on request, provided that this is consistent with any ethics approvals and consents that cover data and materials and any intellectual property rights pertaining to them.

The Museum recognises that publication of the results may need to be delayed for a reasonable period pending protection of intellectual property arising from the research. However, this delay should be kept to a minimum.

3. Guidance from professional bodies and legislation

Where available, the Museum expects researchers to observe standards of research practice set out in guidelines, (including ethical guidelines) published by scientific and learned societies and other relevant professional bodies. The Museum expects researchers to conduct research in accordance to the relevant code of conduct that may exist for any professional bodies that staff are members of.

All researchers should be aware of the legal requirements, which regulate their work, noting particularly health and safety legislation and data protection requirements. Other legislation researchers should also be aware of, but is not limited to, include The Data Protection Act 1998, Freedom of Information Act 2000, The Human Tissue Act 2004 and The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004.

4. Leadership

The Chair of the Museum’s Research Board and Research Manager are responsible for ensuring direction and leadership for research activities, and through doing so will ensure that a climate exists which encourages research to be conducted in accordance with good research practice.

5. Documenting results and storing primary data and materials (eg samples, tissues)

There should be clarity at the outset of the research programme as to the ownership and use of, where relevant:

Data and samples used or created in the course of the research

The results of the research

Questionnaires, interviews and transcripts, recordings and images

Equipment paid for by sponsors.

The responsibilities and procedures for the storage and disposal of data and samples (including compliance with the requirements of any ethics committee) should be made clear at the commencement of any project. Any research collaboration agreement relating to the research should contain clauses describing any necessary arrangements.

Researchers should keep clear and accurate records of the procedures followed and the approvals granted during the research process, including records of the interim results obtained as well as of the final research outcomes. This is necessary not only as a means of demonstrating proper research practice, but also in case questions are subsequently asked about either the conduct of the research or the results obtained. Properly maintained

Page 29 of 42


notebooks may be used in evidence when establishing ownership of inventions in the US under their "first to invent" patenting system.

Researchers must maintain clear and accurate records of the consent process and evidence of consent should be securely stored.

Data generated in the course of research should be kept securely in paper or electronic format, as appropriate. Back-up records should always be kept for data stored on a computer. Data stored electronically should be backed up regularly; duplicate copies should be held on disc in a secure but readily accessible archive. The Museum considers a minimum of ten years to be an appropriate period.

Researchers should report any changes in the direction of sponsored research to the sponsor or any other relevant body. Best practice would be to discuss any change in direction of the research with the sponsor prior to its implementation.

6. Dissemination and publication of results

The Museum encourages publication and dissemination of the results of high quality research. However, researchers must do this responsibly and with an awareness of the consequences of such dissemination in the wider media. Researchers should take into account the following guidance when publishing or disseminating their research or research findings including any plans they may have to publish or publicise research at conferences or on web sites.

The sponsor should be notified in advance when the research might be published, publicised or disseminated.

Researchers should ensure that papers presented for publication are the authors’ own work, reflecting their own research and analysis in an honest and complete manner, placing it appropriately within the context of prior and existing knowledge.

Researchers should make every effort to make sure research is peer reviewed prior to it being published, publicised or disseminated. If research is placed in the public domain before peer review has been undertaken, the researcher must make this clear in the resulting publication and in any publicity.

All funding sources must be acknowledged in any publication or publicity.

Results of research should be published in an appropriate form, usually as papers in refereed journals or refereed edited volumes, or as refereed monographs.

Anyone listed as an author on a paper should accept responsibility for ensuring that he or she is familiar with the contents of the paper and can identify his or her contribution to it. The practice of honorary authorship is unacceptable.

The contributions of formal collaborators and all others who directly assist or indirectly support the research should be both specified and properly acknowledged.

As research carried at the BritishMuseum always has a public dimension, the Museum expects the dissemination of research and its results carried out by Museum staff to different audiences outside of academia through a variety of media.

7. Ethical Practice of Good Research

The Museum’s Research Board will act as the Museum’s Research Ethics Committee. All research that raises ethical concerns must seek approval from the Research Board before

Page 30 of 42


embarking on the research. Questions about any ethical implications of proposed research will be including in the documentation required by the Board for approving new projects, and in the annual reporting system to monitor research projects.

7.1Research involving human participants Researchers should be aware of the appropriate Museum approval that is required for research involving human participants, through the Museum’s Research Board. Approval should also be sought from other regulatory bodies as necessary.

Researchers should ensure confidentiality of personal information relating to participants in research and that the research fulfils appropriate legal requirements e.g. Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Tissue Act 2004.

7.2 Research involving animals Researchers should obtain approval through appropriate ethical review processes (applying to the Research Board) and be aware that they may require home office licences for the institution, the investigator and the project.

Researchers should consider at an early stage in the design of the research involving animals, the opportunities for reduction, replacement and refinement of animal involvement.

7.3 Research involving Human Remains and objects of containing Human RemainsResearchers should be aware of, and work within, the Museum’s policies and guidance on the research and display of Human Remains, and The Human Tissue Act 2004.

7.4 Consumer/Visitor Involvement Researchers should be aware of, and work within, the Museum’s guidance on visitor research.

Researchers should consider and be aware of the active involvement of consumer/visitor groups in research and the dissemination of research findings. It is important for researchers to consider the impact any publication of research findings may have on those involved in the research and consumer groups.

8. Supervision of StudentsMuseum staff acting as sole or joint supervisors of students undertaking research shall ensure that they use appropriately challenging means to reflect upon their practice.

The Museum’s Research Manager will provide information, advice and training on the codes of practice, expectations, managing and monitoring student performance. All Museum staff involved with the supervision of students should consult the relevant University’s codes of practice on student supervision. The Museum recommends that where Museum staff are involved the supervision of students is it usually conducted in close partnership with staff from appropriate HEI, and that the appropriate member of staff of the HEIis responsible for ensuring the student fulfils the requirements under the University’s regulations for the degree the Student is registered for (see arrangements for running collaborative PhD studentships as a model for this arrangement).

Page 31 of 42


Appendix E: Draft Participant Information Sheet

Research Title: An Investigation into the Role Corporate Strategy plays on the Innovation Process for Digital Engagement at the British Museum.

I am completing a Masters of Business Administration with the London School of Marketing and as an affiliated student of the Lord Ashcroft Business School at Anglia Ruskin University. My final research project will investigate the relationship between corporate strategy and the process of innovation in the case of digital engagement at the British Museum.

This research will aim to investigate the relationship between the museum’s strategy and innovation (in terms of digital engagement for temporary exhibitions), what the process for innovation at the museum is, and if there are any additional factors acting on it. The investigation aims to: highlight the strengths and weakness of the existing innovation process;discover how embedded the museum strategy is in digital-engagement activities; identify other factors that contribute or hinder the process of innovation; recommend refinements of, or improvements to, the process; and provide information that could assist in the development and/or management of new organisation competencies.

You have been approached to take part in this study because you are involved in the planning or implementation of digital engagement activities at the British Museum. Other members of staff around the museum have also been approached to take part in this study because their role involves planning or delivery of digital engagement activities (including website and broader online engagement, social media, broadcast, in-gallery displays and publishing).

As part of the methodology for this study, steps will be taken to ensure protection, anonymity and confidentiality of any data gathered. The results will not be made publicly available and will only be accessible to the supervisor and examining body. While every effort will be made to manage the data and to maintain anonymity (no names or job titles will be included in the study unless agreed with the participant), the small sample size of participants and limited case-study scope may make it possible to identify which teams within the museum have participated in the study.

You do have the freedom to refuse participation in the project and also the opportunity to withdraw from the study up until the beginning of April 2014. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an informed consent form and participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews will likely take place in the first two weeks of February and will likely last 1.5 hours. They will take place onsite at the British Museum at the participants convenience, but most likely between the hours of 8am and 6pm. I will be the only one present, but the interviews will be recorded.

You do have time to think about everything discussed in this information sheet before agreeing to be involved or being asked for informed consent. I will contact you again in January 2014 to determine if you are willing to participate and, if so, schedule an appropriate time for an interview.

If you object to any of these arrangements or require any further information, please contact me on the details below.

Page 32 of 42


Researcher: Email: Telephone:

Name of supervisor:

Note on ethics approval: The research proposal for this study received ethics approval from Anglia Ruskin University in advance of contacting any participants and any data collection.

Page 33 of 42


Appendix F: Draft Participant Informed Consent Form

Research Title: An Investigation into the Role Corporate Strategy plays on the Innovation Process for Digital Engagement at the British Museum.

This research will aim to investigate the relationship between the British Museum’s strategy and innovation (in terms of digital engagement for temporary exhibitions), what the process for innovation at the museum is, and if there are any additional factors acting on it. The investigation aims to: highlight the strengths and weakness of the existing innovation process;discover how embedded the museum strategy is in digital-engagement activities; identify other factors that contribute or hinder the process of innovation; recommend refinements of, or improvements to, the process; and provide information that could assist in the development and/or management of new organisation competencies.

You have been approached to take part in this study because you are involved in the planning or implementation of digital engagement activities at the British Museum. Other members of staff around the museum have also been approached to take part in this study because their role involves planning or delivery of digital engagement activities (including website and broader online engagement, social media, broadcast, in-gallery displays and publishing).

By completing this consent form you agree to the statements below.

I have been provided with the Participation Information Sheet for this study.

I have been provided with sufficient time to consider whether or not to be involved in this study.

I have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered honestly.

I have been free to make an autonomous decision about being involved in this study.

I understand that I have the freedom to refuse participation in the project and also the opportunity to withdraw from the study up until the beginning of April 2014.

Signed

Dated

Researcher: Email: Telephone: Name of supervisor:

Note on ethics approval: The research proposal for this study received ethics approval from Anglia Ruskin University in advance of contacting any participants and any data collection.

Page 34 of 42


Appendix G: Stakeholder Analysis

High power

British Museum board British Museum senior

management team Participants line managers

British Museum Research Manager Participants LSM Tutor/supervisor Anglia Ruskin Ethical Research

Committee Researcher

Middle power

Participants’ managers

Low power

British Museum staff British Museum HR department Researcher’s manager Researcher’s family

Low interest Middle interest High Interest

Page 35 of 42


Appendix H: Stakeholder Risk Register

Stakeholder Risk Impact Likelihood ActionLSM Tutor Tutor changes during research period Medium-high Low Maintain contactAnglia Ruskin university Guidelines/requirements change during the research

period.Medium-high Low Regularly check module requirements.

British Museum board Object to the research being conducted. High Low Discuss the research with senior management team early in the process and maintain regular contact.

British Museum senior-management team

Object to the research being conducted. High Low Discuss the research with senior management team early in the process and maintain regular contact.

Key members of staff refuse to take part in the study/ researcher cannot gain access to key informants and/or data.

High Low-medium

Provide information sheets and consent forms. Answer questions and allow

timeforconsideration. Allow time for secondary/additional sampling

and fieldwork.British Museum HR department (sponsor student to complete the course)

Withdraw funding and support for student to complete course.

Medium Low Continue to abide by the professional development agreement.

Researcher Loses interest in research topic. High Low Consider practical implications of research, importance of study and original interest in the topic.

Unforeseeable circumstance prevent completion of research and study.

High Medium Maintain open communications with LSM, university, organisation and participants.

Researcher’s family Withdraws support for student to complete course. Medium Low Maintain open communications.Researcher’s manager Withdraws support for student to complete course. Medium Low Maintain open communications.British Museum staff Don’t support the overall aims of the research study. Low Low Maintain open communications.Research Participants Key members of staff refuse to take part in the study/

researcher cannot gain access to key informants and/or data.

High Low-medium

Provide information sheets and consent forms. Answer questions and allow

timeforconsideration. Allow time for secondary/additional sampling

and fieldwork.

Page 36 of 42


Appendix I: Proposed Research Study Timetable

The research study timetable is split into five phases: proposal development; literature review; methodology development; fieldwork and data analysis; and report writing.

This diagram is a snap-shot of the entire research period.

Week beginning 30-S

ep

07-O

ct

14-O

ct

21-O

ct

28-O

ct

04-N

ov

11-N

ov

18-N

ov

25-N

ov

02-D

ec

09-D

ec

16-D

ec

23-D

ec

30-D

ec

06-J

an

13-J

an

20-J

an

27-J

an

03-F

eb

10-F

eb

17-F

eb

24-F

eb

03-M

ar

10-M

ar

17-M

ar

24-M

ar

31-M

ar

07-A

pr

14-A

pr

21-A

pr

Days of the week M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F

Holiday

Public holidays

Study leave

Work travel

MDI class

RMBM class

MPP class

MFRP class

Tutor meeting

RMBM deadline

MDI deadline

MFRP deadline

Major Project deadline

Idea generation

Title development

Aims and objectives

Questions & hypothesis

Literature review

Secondary data review

Research methodology

Design surveys

Contact informants

Send consent forms

Book interviews

Fieldwork

Interview transcripts

Data analysis

Follow-up field work

Write report

Proofing and editing

Printing and bindingRepo

rt

writ

ing

MBA

cla

ssDe

adlin

es

Annu

al

leav

e/w

ork

trave

lFi

eldw

ork

and

data

an

alys

isM

eth

od.

Lit.

Rev.

Prop

osal

de

velo

pmen

t

Page 37 of 42


Phase 1 – Proposal DevelopmentThe submission of the research proposal marks the completion of phase 1.

Week beginning 30-S

ep

07-O

ct

14-O

ct

21-O

ct

28-O

ct

04-N

ov

11-N

ov

18-N

ov

25-N

ov

02-D

ec

09-D

ec

Days of the week M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T

Holiday

Public holidays

Study leave

Work travel

MDI class

RMBM class

MPP class

MFRP class

Tutor meeting

RMBM deadline

MDI deadline

MFRP deadline


Idea generation

Title development

Aims and objectives

Questions & hypothesis

MB

A c

lass

Dea

dlin

es

Ann

ual

leav

e/w

ork

trav

elPr

opos

al

deve

lopm

ent

Page 38 of 42


Phase 2 – Literature ReviewThe literature review will continue throughout the fieldwork phase to ensure the most up-to-date theoretical and practitioner views are considered.

Week beginning 30-S

ep

07-O

ct

14-O

ct

21-O

ct

28-O

ct

04-N

ov

11-N

ov

18-N

ov

25-N

ov

02-D

ec

09-D

ec

16-D

ec

23-D

ec

30-D

ec

06-J

an

13-J

an

20-J

an

27-J

an

03-F

eb

10-F

eb

17-F

eb

24-F

eb

03-M

ar

10-M

ar

17-M

ar

24-M

ar

31-M

ar

07-A

pr

14-A

pr

21-A

pr

Days of the week M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M

HolidayPublic holidays

Study leave

Work travelMDI class

RMBM class

MPP class

MFRP class

Tutor meeting

RMBM deadline

MDI deadline

MFRP deadline


Literature review

Secondary data review

MB

A c

lass

Dea

dlin

es

Ann

ual

leav

e/w

ork

trav

elLi

t. R

ev.

Phase 3 – Methodology DevelopmentFollowing approval of the research proposal, there will be a detailed development of the methodology, including interview design and data analysis plan.

Week beginning 04-N

ov

11-N

ov

18-N

ov

25-N

ov

02-D

ec

09-D

ec

16-D

ec

23-D

ec

30-D

ec

06-J

an

13-J

an

20-J

an

27-J

an

Days of the week S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M

Holiday

Public holidays

Study leave

Work travel

MDI class

RMBM class

MPP class

MFRP class

Tutor meeting

RMBM deadline

MDI deadline

MFRP deadline


Research methodology

Design surveys

MB

A c

lass

Dea

dlin

es

Ann

ual

leav

e/w

ork

trav

elM

eth

od.

Page 39 of 42


Phase 4 – Fieldwork and Data AnalysisTime has been allowed in the fieldwork and data analysis phase to ensure ethical considerations can be explored, information sheets and consent forms can be sent, and interviews can be scheduled and transcribed. Depending on the availability of participants, interviews will be held within a two-week period, allowing for a dedicated period of data analysis.

Week beginning 13-J

an

20-J

an

27-J

an

03-F

eb

10-F

eb

17-F

eb

24-F

eb

03-M

ar

10-M

ar

Days of the week M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S

Holiday

Public holidays

Study leave

Work travel

MDI class

RMBM class

MPP class

MFRP class

Tutor meeting

RMBM deadline

MDI deadline

MFRP deadline


Contact informants

Send consent forms

Book interviews

Fieldwork

Interview transcripts

Data analysis

Follow-up field work

MB

A c

lass

Dea

dlin

es

Ann

ual

leav

e/w

ork

trav

elFi

eldw

ork

and

data

an

alys

is

Page 40 of 42


Phase 5 – Report Writing

Report writing will be continuous, with sections completed as the associated phase comes to an end (see Appendix J for the proposed report structure). There will be a dedicated period of report writing and editing during the final weeks.

Week beginning 13-J

an

20-J

an

27-J

an

03-F

eb

10-F

eb

17-F

eb

24-F

eb

03-M

ar

10-M

ar

17-M

ar

24-M

ar

31-M

ar

07-A

pr

14-A

pr

21-A

pr

Days of the week M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F

Holiday

Public holidays

Study leave

Work travel

MDI class

RMBM class

MPP class

MFRP class

Tutor meeting

RMBM deadline

MDI deadline

MFRP deadline


Write report

Proofing and editing

Printing and bindingRep

ort

writ

ing

MB

A c

lass

Dea

dlin

es

Ann

ual

leav

e/w

ork

trav

el

Page 41 of 42


Appendix J: Proposed Structure

Section Content SummarySupporting Documentation

Cover note Plagiarism declaration Tutor contact sheet Turnitin receipt

Front Matter Title page Abstract Contents page Table of figures

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background Information

About the research studyo General aims and purpose of studyo The research issueo Why it is an issue and relevant to the case-study organisationo Researcher’s interest in the topic

Introduction to the organisation Summary of the industry

Chapter 2 – Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Summary of findings from existing literature Limitations of existing literature Discussion of existing theoretical framework and context for research Implications for the research study

Chapter 3 – Methodology

Summary of methodology and rationale adopted:o interview designo samplingo coding frameworks o data analysis plan

Justification for the choice of methodology adopted Limitations of research methodology

Chapter 4 – Analysis and Findings

Analysis of findings in relation to the objectives, hypotheses and methodology

Inclusion of data tables, quotes and diagrams Inferences drawn from findings

Chapter 5 – Discussion of Findings

Implications of findings for research questions Implications of findings for future research Limitations of research and findings

Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusions developed in relation to the research aims, objectives, questions and hypotheses, analysis and findings and implications for future research

Chapter 7 – References

Articles Books Websites Online papers Secondary data sources

Chapter 8 – Appendices

To be determined, but will include data and information referred to but not included in the body of the report

Page 42 of 42

Documents

Introduction - files.transtutors.com€¦ · Web viewThe principle aim of this investigation is to critically examine the impact the BM’s organisationstrategy has on the innovation