basic social math - research proposal

© Grenoble Ecole de Management Doctoral School - 2010

GRENOBLE ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT Doctorate in Business Administration Program

PRELIMINARY RESEARCH PROPOSAL

TEMPLATE

Name of the candidate

First Name

Jared Lee

Last Name

Hanson

Certificate of authorship

Please read carefully the following statement and sign below it

“I hereby certify that I am the author of this document and any assistance I received in preparing this report is fully acknowledged. I have also cited all sources from which I obtained ideas, data

and words. I’m aware that plagiarism will lead to the cancellation of my application”.

After printing this document put the date and your signature :

15 November 2011


Instructions for writing your preliminary research proposal

This preliminary research proposal is a complete description of your intended research, to be later developed under the supervision of an assigned supervisor. Research proposal evaluation criteria Proposal reviewers will look at 3 primary criteria:

1- Relevance of the research question from both a managerial and an academic perspective a. Managerial: will your research bring added-value to improve managerial practices? b. Academic: will your research bring new knowledge to your field? Is the research

methodology rigorous? 2- Research feasibility

a. Is your research feasible in a period of 4 years? b. Is data easily accessible? c. Will it be easy to collect primary data?

3- Proposal quality a. Writing style b. Argumentation c. Structure and organization

When writing this proposal, take care to to answer the following questions: How interesting and important is my research? Is my research feasible? Can I produce an excellent dissertation and subsequent academic papers? Formatting requirements Please follow strictly the guidelines below when submitting your proposal: use only this document to submit your research proposal which must comply with the following formatting requirements: -Font: 12 point, Times New Roman -Title 1: 14 Times New Roman Bold -Title 2: 12 Times New Roman Bold -Title 3: 12 Times New Roman underlined -Text [Including references]: Double-spaced, justified Anti plagiarism policy Grenoble Ecole de Management has a very strict policy with regards to plagiarism and has therefore put very rigorous procedures and measures of control into place. Please submit your research proposal in hard (paper) and electronic formats. Your work will be screened for plagiarism through a specific antiplagiarism software (e.g. Turnitin).


Finding academic and managerial references If you do not yet have access to scientific databases (ABI Inform, Science Direct, etc.), you can browse the web and use these information sources:

1- Google scholars: http://scholar.google.com 2- Google books: http://books.google.com/books

Also, to have a clear understanding of the research process and to improve the quality of your preliminary research proposal, we recommend that you refer to one of the books listed below:

1- Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R., Lowe, A., (2002), Management Research: An Introduction, SAGE Series in Management Research, London.

2- Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R., Jackson, P., Lowe, A., (2008), Management Research: Theory and Practice, SAGE Series in Management Research, London.

3- Ghauri P. And Gronhaug K. (2005), Research methods in Business Studies, 3rd edition, Prentice-Hall

4- Saunders M., Lewis P. and Tornhill A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, 5th edition, Pearson Education Limited, Upper Saddle River

5- Leedy P.D. and Ormrod J.E. (2009), Practical Research: Planning and Design, 9th edition, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

6- Huff A.S. (2009), Designing research for publications, 1st edition; Sage, London Quoting your sources When you refer to ideas from other researchers, different rules must be applied.

1- In the core text, you should mention the name(s) of the author(s) and the date the work was published.

a. If there is one author: my sentence (Allibert, 2008) b. If there are two authors: my sentence (Allibert and Bertalli, 2008). Keep the order of

the names as it is in the paper/book. c. If there are three authors or more: my sentence (Allibert et al., 2008). Keep the name of

the first author indicated in the paper/book d. You can also directly refer to the authors: Allibert (2008) noticed that .....

Examples

- Usage frequency also comes close to depth of usage (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). - In these cases, authors mainly referred to the different situations in which the product is used

(Srivastava et al., 1978; Metzger, 1985; Harvey and Rothe, 1986) - Definitions of width of usage (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985) and breadth of usage

(Zaichowski, 1985) also reveal proximity with usage variety - As a fourth distinction, Oliver (1997) considered that few conceptual antecedents of perceived

quality were known, whereas satisfaction was known to be influenced by many cognitive and affective processes


Bibliography In the last part of your research proposal, you need to indicate your reference list. Here you should detail the precise references of the works mentioned in your preliminary research proposal. In this preliminary research proposal, references must be presented as follows: Hart , C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, UK: Sage Publications. Gebauer, J. and Tang, Y. (2008). Applying the Theory of Task-Technology Fit to Mobile Technology: The Role of User Mobility. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6(3), 321-344


Overview of the proposal

Research Proposal Title Indicate here the title of your research proposal. The title of your dissertation proposal should be informative and helpful in clarifying the topic and the focus of your research.

Basic Social Math:

A Qualitative Study on Reframing the Problem-solving Paradigm of Management Science.

Research Proposal Abstract This is a summary of your research proposal. It should be no longer than 500 words.

There are foundational errors in the mathematical frameworks currently used in management

science research. A new approach is needed in social science research and systems engineering. This

paper examines how the new understandings of complex systems, the role of emotion in cognition,

and the core dynamics of decision making can help us correct these errors and to create a general

framework for systemic innovation. It argues for the development of more rigorous linguistic tools

that can objectively analyze social dynamics from an empirical perspective rather than from subjective

cultural frames. In order to upgrade theories and adapt practices in social and management systems,

we need to first correct problems at the fundamental end of the mathematical framework that is used

for problem representation and legitimation.

In order to establish a new perspective that can foster innovation in the management sciences,

better tools are needed at the fundamental level of math that is used for social analysis. Currently,

subjective cultural-linguistic frames serve as the basis for most of the underlying metrics of social

interactions in organizational behavior and decision analysis. The problem with this is that the value

structures of different cultural-linguistic frames do not align in mathematically consistent ways.

Therefore, inferences made using these frameworks cannot accurately predict performance outcomes


in global contexts that cross cultures. By reframing the problem-solving paradigm in terms of

empirically validated relationship dynamics, it is hypothesized that we can create a unified linguistic

framework capable of producing coherent pictures of management problems that are free from

cultural bias. Rather than focusing on all the cultural differences, this project puts an alternative

approach to the test that focuses on the common ground that all humans share from a neurobiological

and decision making point of view. A case study will be conducted and written about a change

management program now underway at a large private school in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.


DETAILED PROPOSAL

1- Brief introduction and problem statement In this section you should introduce the subject area, set the context for the proposed study and highlight the relevance of this research within the broader subject area. You should indicate why your research question is important and why it is worthy of a dissertation-level inquiry. Typically you should try to address some of the following questions: What is the problem? Is the problem of current interest? Why is this question important and worth studying? Why are you interested in the topic area?

Neither Qualitative nor Quantitative methods, as they are currently constituted, adequately

resolve the problems of representation and legitimation in the management sciences. The source of

these problems is two fold:

1. Qualitatively, we don't have an alternative to cultural narrative as the basis for values used

in the calculations of meaning, which creates subjectivity in representations of management problems.

2. Quantitatively, we don't have empirical measures for management problems that adhere to

fundamental rigors and principles of basic math, which limits the overall legitimacy of results.

“Qualitative Research is an interactive process shaped by the researcher’s personal history,

biography, race, etc. There is no ‘value-free’ social science” (Patel, 2011). “Quantitative methods

require the use of standardized measures so that the varying perspectives and experiences of people

can fit into a limited number of predetermined response categories to which numbers are assigned”

(Patton, 2002; Patel, 2011). The questions of ‘Whose values?’ and ‘Whose standards?’ remain

unanswered within these paradigms of problem-solving, therefore any problem representations created

within them remain somewhat biased and subjective. Attempts have been made to catalogue the

differences between the values and standards that are embedded in various cultural-linguistic

narratives. But so far, no innovative breakthrough has been made in methods used to reconcile such

differences, nor has a coherent alternative to cultural-linguistic framing been developed for

representing and solving problems in management science.


The following Renaissance paintings illustrate how the value calculations and underlying

standards used to create problem representations affect the final picture that we see:

Madonna Enthroned 1280 by Cimabue

Madonna Enthroned 1310 by Giotto

Mona Lisa 1503-6 by Leonardo da Vinci

Think about the mathematical structures that underlie each of these pictures and the impact

that they have on the quality and clarity of the representation of the subject. These are the types of

fundamental rigors that we need to apply to our representations of management problems in order to

resolve the deficiencies of current methods.

Basic Social Math is a linguistic innovation that reframes the problem-solving paradigm of

management science by shifting away from underlying sets of beliefs embodied in the cultural

narratives of different researchers and moving towards a culturally neutral set of beliefs embodied in

the linguistic frame of basic math. It incorporates rigors at the fundamental end of the mathematical

spectrum that can simultaneously bring conceptual alignment to abstract representations of decision

making and provide the means of legitimating observations and conclusions within real world

contexts of social interaction.


2- Research question In this part you should indicate, clearly and concisely, the purpose of the study and outline the key research question(s). This part should answer the following question: What are the aims and objectives of your work? You should also indicate the field of research: industry, companies, country, period, etc.

How effectively can managers operate in cross-cultural contexts, if they reframe problems in

terms of Basic Social Math, compared with those who frame problems in terms of existing cultural

narratives?

Can the fundamental relationship dynamics of decision making effectively be used to

determine the limits of coherence in organizational engineering in the same way as aerodynamics

determine the limits of coherence for engineering of structures that fly?

Subsequently, how appropriate is the use of Basic Social Math in structuring and solving

operational problems that are considered complex or wicked?

Are managers able to create representations of problems in cross-cultural contexts that are free

from bias and viewed as legitimate from all stakeholders’ perspectives?

In using the empirical neurobiological processes that underlie decision making and social

interaction to standardize metrics and markers, how effectively are managers able to resolve conflicts

arising from stakeholders with differing cultural values?

Instead of framing management problems in terms of the many differences in cultural

narratives, Basic Social Math reframes the same problems using the few common variables that

emerge from the empirical processes that underlie decision making and neurological development.

Whereas if we frame observations of social interaction in terms of various cultural value frameworks,

we interpret the same phenomena in different ways leading to the conclusion that more variations

appear to be present than actually exist. The following photograph illustrates visually the problem

generated by using different cultural value sets to frame the phenomena we observe in social

interactions:


Since we have no alternative to using cultural narrative as the basis of the value calculations in

our representations of the phenomena we observe, a false dichotomy has emerged that divides

knowledge generation in social science into either a Post-Positivist paradigm (where the phenomena

exist independent of the observer who objectively seeks to understand, but cultural biases remain) or a

Constructivist paradigm (where understanding is co-constructed socially by the observer and therefore

many realities exist). This dichotomy is entirely generated by cultural linguistic framing. Neither

paradigm acknowledges the empirical phenomena that stand independent of our changing perceptions

of them. These differences in perception do not change the actual phenomena we observe. We fail to

recognize that language is socially constructed. It

only conveys meaning with a limited degree of

accuracy. Hence, additional linguistic rigors are

required in order to create a new paradigm, which is

able to generate meaningful representations that are

both culturally neutral and empirically objective.

Reframing is the only way to adequately resolve the

problems of representation and legitimation.


3- Relevance to existing literature The purpose of this section is to show that you are aware of significant work in the field. By providing a brief survey of the literature that summarizes what we know and what we do not yet know about your particular topic, you should demonstrate how much you know about current activities in the subject area and your understanding of current research.

In order to reframe the problem-solving paradigm of management science, Basic Social Math

reexamines the relationships between the observer, the observed, and the representations generated

thereby. It first resolves contradictions in the ontological and epistemological foundations of social

science in order to overcome shortcomings in the two major paradigms that are used in research,

where different views of the same phenomena emerge and multiple realities appear to exist.

“The net that contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological

premises is a ‘paradigm’: basic set of beliefs that guides actions” (Guba, 1990; Patel 2011). The

following illustration captures the relationship dynamics in question regarding paradigms of research:

The problem with the Post-positivist paradigm is that it fails to acknowledge the impact of the

observer’s cultural linguistic frame on the picture of external phenomena that is created in the

observer’s brain. Thus it fails to achieve its objective of different observers being able to arrive at the

same conclusions about the same external phenomena.


The problem with the Constructivist paradigm is that even though it acknowledges the impact

of cultural linguistic framing on the pictures of external phenomena that are created in the brain, it

fails to recognize that the external phenomena are not changed by our changing perceptions. Multiple

realities do not exist in the properties and dynamics of the external phenomena we observe.

Because these problems in the ontological and epistemological paradigms of management

research remain unresolved, the general belief has developed that the social sciences are not like the

physical sciences with respect to empirical studies and validation of general principles. The social

world is too complex to be understood in such ways, or so the logic goes. However, a new

understanding of complexity itself has emerged in the last decade, which up-ends such long-standing

beliefs.

“In parallel with the current transformative revolutions in information processing and

communication,...there is another revolution, a Kuhnian paradigm shift at the dawn of the 21st century

much as physics underwent in the beginning of the 20th century when quantum mechanics was added

to Newtonian physics. That revolution is in our understanding of how complex adaptive systems

(CAS) gather, compute, store and communicate—from DNA to the human biopsychosocial levels—

and in our use of this knowledge” (Jobson, 2011).

Rather than arguing about contradictory views generated between Constructivist and Post-

positivist paradigms and the differences that result from cultural-narrative framing, Basic Social Math

seeks a new paradigm based on rigorous linguistics with experientially validated correspondence to

empirical phenomena. As Stuart Dreyfus states, when we look at how neurons actually function in the

brain during the generation of new knowledge, “many of the difficulties and complications that arise

when an agent [observer] is assumed to be either a manipulator of a vast array of separately

remembered situations or a disembodied, detached decision maker trying to make a model of its

environment and then respond sensibly based on that model vanish when the agent is seen as an

embedded, involved, adaptive entity using only environmental feedback and its own internal state to

learn to respond in a model-free way” (2004).


By examining management science phenomena in terms of the dynamic processes that

individual agents use to function, new representations of problems can be created based on empirical

phenomena instead of cultural narrative. This effort to reframe the real problems of social interaction

in various management contexts follows the advice of Cambridge’s Dénes Sz!cs and Usha Goswami

who urged that neuroscientists should not work in isolation. “Educational researchers and teachers,

with their extensive practical experience, need to be involved in formulating research questions. Their

practical knowledge should also contribute to setting strategic directions for educational neuroscience

research” (2007). There must be a cyclical feedback loop between the research questions investigated

and the real problems to which the findings can be applied. In other words, an active reflective process

is needed.

No basic framework or methodology can be found in the literature for how to systematically

engage in a reflective process. Here, I had to search beyond the management disciplines to find useful

models and guides. David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb & Fry: 1975), for example, has

been utilized in the teaching profession to help people engage in an active reflective practice. This

framework provides a model of the developmental process that moves learners from the abstract to the

concrete application of new concepts. As Dreyfus states, “the agent need only observe how the

process unfolds.” And he concludes that “the best explanation of the source of skilled behavior may

well be that experience has modified the expert’s synapses so as to produce it.” This cycle is common

to all neurobiological development and does not change based on culture.

Whereas Hofstede and the GLOBE study look at the ways that national cultures differ, Basic

Social Math frames all management problems in terms of the universal empirics of neurobiological

interactions that underlie both learning and decision making. Hofstede looked at 5 dimensions in

which national cultures vary. The GLOBE study looked at 9 dimensions (Javidan, 2006). In both

cases, interesting insights are produced, however, the problems of representation and legitimation are

not resolved. Fundamentally, by examining how cultures are different we do not arrive at useful tools

for representing management problems that remove the cultural biases generated in the pictures we


produce. We only end up seeing that each picture is different depending on the cultural context in

which it is produced. The following two pictures represent these distinctions:

So we end up with the acknowledgement that the resulting pictures are different and the

conclusion is that different approaches may be needed in order to solve problems. But so what?

If, on the other hand, we look at the common variables that tell us how all cultures are the

same, then we end up with something much more powerful from an analytical and problem-solving

point of view. We arrive at a noise filter that can first give us a clear picture of the phenomena we are

observing and then we can use the powerful tools of math to find innovative new approaches to solve

problems. Rather than spending time counting all the differences, we can take the new understanding

of how complex systems function and identify the simple underlying components that generate all the

complex pictures in the system. In other words, rather than trying to understand all the differences

between pictures generated in different cultural narratives, we can just seek to understand the common

elements that are used in generating pictures of social interaction. This is the equivalent of seeking to

understand the three primary colors and how they can be combined in order to produce an infinite

variety of pictures, instead of trying to describe how different artists create different pictures. The

following illustrates the structural breakdown of the complex system that generates pictures:


Management science emerges from decision making in social contexts. Making decisions is

the most fundamental component of managing people. It is the central process that underlies every

issue and every problem we encounter in organizations. Decision making is to management as

electricity is to electronics. The only way to harness its power is through an accurate understanding of

its fundamental nature.

Thus, innovation revolves around decisions. Strategy revolves around decisions. Coping with

change in operational environments revolves around decisions. Any social interaction that requires

leadership revolves around decisions. The dynamics of decision making are as critical to management

science as aerodynamics are to flight.

And yet, there is no common, empirically-based view of social decision making in the

management science literature. Ideas about how decisions can and should be made vary widely across

social disciplines and cultures. This lack of clarity at the underlying, fundamental level creates a very

complex and obscured picture of problems encountered in management science.

Without conceptual alignment at the underlying, structural level, where value calculations take

place, our representations of management science problems remain rudimentary and unsophisticated,

despite the incorporation of sophisticated quantitative techniques. Since cultural narratives serve as


the basis of value calculations in most qualitative problem representations, they do not provide a

rigorous foundation for relating scales or magnitudes that accurately correspond to phenomena in the

real world. Quantitatively, we lack empirical standards. Qualitatively, we use cultural values.

Observers from different cultures often create vastly different representations of the same set

of interactions because they are calculating different factors with different values that are not

mathematically consistent. Here is an easy visual example from a Chinese artist that I met in Xi’an

who painted a portrait of me, an American.

So, when we attempt to reconcile the problem representations created in different cultural

frames, we conclude that the calculations are extremely complex and difficult because nothing seems

to align concretely. Investigating social and management problems is not a “hard” science, like

physics, we conclude. In operations research, for example, these problems have come to be labeled,

“soft,” because of the shifting nature of problem representations created from the differing

perspectives of stakeholders. The math that has been developed so far and put into practice still

contains uncorrected errors. Jonathan Barzalai, professor of industrial engineering at Dalhousie

University elaborated on what is needed:

“The construction of the mathematical foundations of any scientific discipline requires the

identification of the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable the application of the

mathematical operations of linear algebra and calculus. Because these conditions have not been

correctly identified in the literature, the fundamental problem of applicability of mathematical

operations to scale values has not been solved and these operations are applied in error in game


theory, economic theory, psychology, and other social sciences. In particular, addition and

multiplication are not applicable to any scale values in decision theory.” (Barzilai 2007)

This is where reframing can have a profound impact on the conclusions we reach about

management science problems. The following comparison between Roman and Arabic numerals

illustrates how linguistics affects calculation:

Even a casual look a the history of Arithmetic from Wikipedia gives us a sense of how

important this linguistic innovation was in the development of science:

“...the characteristics of the particular numeral system strongly influence the complexity of the

methods. The hieroglyphic system for Egyptian numerals, like the later Roman numerals, descended

from tally marks used for counting....

“The gradual development of Hindu-Arabic numerals independently devised the place-value

concept and positional notation, which combined the simpler methods for computations with a

decimal base and the use of a digit representing zero. This allowed the system to consistently

represent both large and small integers. This approach eventually replaced all other systems.…

“The flourishing of algebra in the medieval Islamic world and in Renaissance Europe was an

outgrowth of the enormous simplification of computation through decimal notation” (2011).

Jonathan Barzalai has demonstrated conclusively, that the math used in fields such as

economics, operations research, decision analysis, and game theory has uncorrected errors at the

foundational level (2007). So, it is at the fundamental end of the mathematical spectrum that we now

need to focus, if we want to improve our capacity to represent problems and to fully legitimate

conclusions we reach in the management sciences. By correcting these foundational errors, this

project calls into question many widely held beliefs about the nature of management science and our

inability to use scientific methods to solve the ‘wicked’ problems that arise from complex social

interactions.

LXXVIII 78 – XLIV vs. – 44


“Wicked problems always occur in a social context, and there can be radically different views

and understanding of the problem by different stakeholders, with no unique “correct” view (Horn and

Weber 2007). Thus, their wicked nature stems not only from their biophysical complexity but also

from multiple stakeholders’ perceptions of them and of potential trade-offs associated with problem

solving” (Batie, 2008).

“Wicked problems often crop up when organizations have to face constant change or

unprecedented challenges. They occur in a social context; the greater the disagreement among stake-

holders, the more wicked the problem. In fact, it’s the social complexity of wicked problems as much

as their technical difficulties that make them tough to manage” (Camillus, 2008).

The value of reframing then is that much of the wickedness is neutralized due to the

conceptual alignment that is created at the underlying level of calculation that produces the problem

representations (level of primary colors). It more effectively harnesses the power of abstraction by

creating alignment based on the universal empirical processes that underlie decision making in social

contexts. This greatly simplifies the calculations and reduces the overall complexity of the mental

processing required.

If we examine how abstraction works in the

complex systems of language, we can get a better

idea of how we can harness its power to help us in

solving the wicked problems of complex social

interaction.

In Chinese, abstraction works at the surface

level of the language. An abstract symbol is

derived from a pictorial drawing of a word. Since there are thousands of different words, there are

thousands of different abstract symbols required to calculate meaning in the written language. While

functional, this is the least efficient usage of abstraction.


When abstraction is applied at the structural level of a language, then much more of its power

can be harnessed. Rather than having symbols account for the variation in words, Arabic uses

different symbols to represent the sounds from which words are constructed. Since there are roughly

30 sound variations from which the entire complex system of the language emerges, only about as

many abstract symbols are required to do the same job that requires thousands of symbols to calculate

meaning in Chinese.

The lesson we learn here is that if we try to account for all the differences at the surface level

of a complex system, we will not be able to effectively harness the power of abstraction. If, however,

we work at the structural level, we can find the points of alignment that can be abstracted into a much

smaller set of component parts that can represent all of the calculations within the system.

So, when we talk about values and standards that are embedded in different cultural narratives,

it will be much less efficient to try to account for all the differences in decision making between

cultures than to work at the structural level of the decision-making process itself. By creating

abstractions of the underlying parts of the process, we end up with a much smaller set of variables.

The resulting calculations simultaneously capture all variations in the system and better harness the

power of abstraction.

So, where the GLOBE Study tries to do the enormous job of accounting for the many cultural

differences that affect calculations in management problems, Basic Social Math only requires

evaluation of 8 simple variables based on the neurobiological interactions that underlie learning and

decision making that are parallel across all systemic levels and cultures. By reframing the problem-

solving paradigm in this way, it is hypothesized that a manager will be better able to harness the

power of abstraction to calculate solutions and operate more effectively in any context.


4- Research methodology Here you should state the type of research method you intend to use (quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method). You should also define the rationale for the selection of participants, methods of data collection (e.g. survey, focus groups, interviews) and analysis. Please do not forget to state how you will gain access participants. You should also include a statement about the delimitations (boundaries) of your research.

Viewed from a much broader perspective, Basic Social Math is a framework for the study of

fundamental patterns, dynamics, and cycles related to social interaction at all levels; from the

microscopic neurobiology of the brain to the macroscopic socio-cultural systems of the global

economy. It’s a mathematical framework for identifying and validating universal constraints,

operating rules and general laws of social interaction that can be used to deconstruct, analyze,

simulate, and engineer various social systems in education, business, and government. In order to

determine if such a framework can contribute to our understanding of social systems and/or improve

interactions within these systems, a case study conducted in a live management setting is required.

The problem is where to find a context in which you can test the validity of Basic Social Math

in a real world operation. Where do you get participants who are willing to take the risks of learning to

function within a new paradigm in real time? What about the financial risks of the drops in

performance that are part of the developmental process? Most business people are not willing to take

such risks or make such efforts without some very compelling motivation for doing so. In some cases,

firms may lead the way for reasons of competitive advantage. Others may be forced to make the shift

due to changes in the conditions of their operating environment.

The educational setting, in which I am now working, provides a unique context where various

decision making concepts can be tested in low risk settings. In other words, you can try different

approaches without the risk of serious financial losses. That way different risky approaches can be

tested for their social consequences without incurring financial losses if things don't turn out as


expected. Also, since I'm working in a cross-cultural setting, all of the issues that business managers

face in decision making in global operations can clearly be accounted for and tested for sustainability.

As such, a real world context must be used in order to put the various assumptions that

underlie current beliefs to the test. Experiments must be conducted in order to also put an alternative

set of assumptions, embodied in Basic Social Math, to the test, so that outcomes can be compared and

evaluated. Hence, I have chosen to use a case study, conducted in a cross-cultural organization that is

undergoing a major change management program, as the basis of these qualitative experiments. I have

begun a development program at a large private school in Riyadh where we are retraining teachers in

their English program to follow a more reflective practice in their approach to the operation of their

entire program.

The forces of globalization are causing changes that are generating ‘wicked’ problems which

can be seen in the operation of this school. In this global operating environment, performance

outcomes of the school have dropped substantially. Students spend 12 years in the school’s English

program, yet large numbers graduate still unable to communicate in basic English.

Parents are dissatisfied because they have paid tuition to educate their children, yet they have

to pay again for their children to spend another year or two in college just learning English. They

blame the school administration for failing to provide adequate education.

The administration blames the teachers, claiming that they do not control the students properly

and that they use out-dated methods of instruction. The teachers blame the students, claiming that they

do not want to learn. They also claim that the administration has created a system of conflicting

priorities and unrealistic expectations in which teachers find it difficult to operate.

Students claim the whole system is worthless and question why they should even bother

putting forth the effort to learn when there are many loopholes in the system through which they can

get their graduation certificates without learning anything.

From a management point of view, the case study will focus on how Basic Social Math can be

applied in the following situations and what results are achieved in the live setting:

1. Usage as the basis for diagnosing the problems that are producing poor results.


2. Usage as the technical basis for engineering sustainable solutions to the above problems.

3. Usage in analyzing the interpersonal relationships involved between Parents, Administrators,

Teachers, and Students.

4. Usage as the basis for reconciling the competing, and often conflicting, interests, priorities, and

objectives of stakeholders.

This study will use multiple means of data capture from interventions and experiments

conducted, including surveys of stakeholders, filmed interviews of key management and

administrative personnel, filmed observations of class operations, filmed training sessions with

managers, teachers, and supervisors, as well as performance results from students in the program.

From this data, the case study will be written along with an evaluation of the impacts that reframing

had on the overall effectiveness of managers in this context.

5- Workplan


What is your timeframe to achieve this research, taking into account that you will have to submit your final thesis on Month 36 of your program. Tasks to be achieved Start date Deadline

Phase 1

Determine definitive research

question

28 Feb 2011 01 May 2011

Define research model 15 Oct 2011 15 Jan 2012

Define methodology 15 Jun 2011 15 Oct 2011

Prepare and write literature

review

15 Nov 2011 31 Jan 2012

Prepare pilot study 01 Sep 2011 15 Jan 2012

Phase 2

Collect data 15 Jan 2012 15 May 2012

Analyze Data 15 May 2012 01 Sep 2012

Write final work 01 Sep 2012 01 Dec 2012

Submit final work Dec 2012

Review and defend March 2013


References Please indicate your preliminary bibliography. Annual Review for 2009/10, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, p18.

Adams, A. (2005) "Brain Waves: The Science and Ethics of Exploring the Mind." Stanford Medicine

Magazine, Fall 2005: http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2005fall/brain-main.html.

Bailey, Charles E. (2007) "Cognitive Accuracy and Intelligent Executive Function in the Brain and in

Business." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v118 (1) 2007: 122-141.

Banks, Jerry, and Randall Gibson. (2009) "The ABCs of Simulation Practice." Analytics, Spring 2009:

16-21.

Barzilai, Jonathan. (2007) Game Theory Foundational Errors and the Mathematical Foundations of

Operations Research. CORS-SCRO Bulletin, Vol. 41 No. 4: Canadian Operations Research

Society.

Barzilai, Jonathan. (2008) Preference Function Modeling (PFM): The Mathematical Foundations of

Decision Theory. Technical Report, Halifax: Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Dalhousie

University.

Barzilai, Jonathan. (2009) "Preference Function Modeling: The Mathematical Foundations of

Decision Theory." Trends in MCDA, 1-30.

Batie, Sandra S. (2008) “Wicked Problems and Applied Economics.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 90 (Number

5, 2008): 1176–1191

Blumstein, Sheila, et al. (2006) "A Report on Grand Challenges of Mind and Brain." Workshop on

Mind and Brain: Strategies and Directions for Future Research. Arlington, VA: National Science

Foundation.

Bordley, Robert F. (2009) "Making Decision Analysis More Accessible." ORMS Today, v36 (4): 10.

Boyd, E. A. (2007) "Scientists Tailor-made for Today’s World." ORMS Today, v34 (4): 16-17.

Brooks, David. (2009) "The End of Philosophy." The New York Times, Apr 7, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print.


—. "They Had It Made." The New York Times, May 12, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12brooks.html?pagewanted=print.

Camillus, John C. (2008) “Strategy as a Wicked Problem.” Harvard Business Review, May 2008.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999) "Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy." In Resisting Linguistic

Imperialism in English Teaching, 29. ISBN 0194421546: Oxford University Press.

Carey, Benedict. (2009) "Brain Researchers Open Door to Editing Memory." The New York Times,

Apr 6, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/health/research/06brain.html?hp=&pagewanted=print.

—. "When All You Have Left Is Your Pride." The New York Times, Apr 7, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07mind.html?em=&pagewanted=print.

Darbishire, Owen and Sue Dopson, (2010) “Module Overview” Understanding Management Success,

Saïd Business School, 6-9 Jan 2010.

Denker, John S. (1996) "Energy Awarness and Energy Management. In See How It Flies--A new spin

on the perceptions, procedures, and principles of flight.,

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html. 1996.

Dilnot, A., and M. Blastland. (2007) "The Numbers Game: Statistics and Politics."

OpenDemocracy.net:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/institutions_government/statistics_politics.

Dreyfus, Stuart E. (2004) “Totally Model-free Learned Skillful Coping.” Bulletin of Science,

Technology & Society, Vol. 24, No. 3, June 2004, 182-187. DOI: 10.1177/0270467604264813

Farmer, D. J. (2007) "Neuro-Gov. Neuroscience as Catalyst." Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences, v1118 (1): 74-89.

Feigin, G. (2008) "Has Academic O.R. Lost Its Way?" ORMS Today, v35 (1) : 16-17.

Gawande, A. (2008) "The Itch." The New Yorker, Jun 30, 2008.

Grant, Robert, (2010) Contemporary Strategy Analysis, John Wiley, London, 473.


Grossman, Pam. (2009) "Teaching: No Fallback Career." The New York Times, Apr 19, 2009:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/teaching-no-fallback-career/.

Hanson, J. L. (2002) Control Freak: Harness the Power. ISBN 0595246524: Writer’s Club Press,

2002.

Huhman, Kim L. Society for Neuroscience 2005 Conference. Film Interview, Washington, DC:

Hearts & Minds Production LLC, 2005.

Immordino-Yang, M.H., and A. Damasio. "We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of

Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education." Mind, Brain, and Education, v1 (1) 2007: 3-10.

Javidan, M. et al (2006) “Conceptualizing and Measuring Cultures and Their Consequences: A

Comparative Review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s Approaches.” Journal of International Business

Studies. Sep 2006, 897-914.

Jobson, et al, OR/MS Today, INFORMS.org, June 2011.

Ketter, Wolfgang, and F. Jordan Srour. "Optimal or Agile? Tradeoffs Between Optimization and

Agent-based Methods." OR/MS Today, June 2009: Vol. 36, No. 3.

Kolb, David A., and Roger Fry. "Toward an applied theory of experiential learning." In Theories of

Group Process, by C. Cooper. London: John Wiley, 1975.

Lohr, Steve. "How Crisis Shapes the Corporate Model." The New York Times, Mar 29, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/29unbox.html?pagewanted=print.

Luce, R. Duncan. "Interview for Documentary Film." Basic Social Math. Irvine, CA: Hearts & Minds

Production LLC, 2005.

Miller, Tom. "The Five-Stage Process." A C-L/CLL Introductory Workshop. Brattleboro, VT:

Counseling-Learning Institutes, 2006. [email protected].

Morris, Tim. "Key Ideas about the Role of Leaders and Leadership." Dipl. in Org. Leadership Course.

Oxford: Said Business School, Sep 8-11, 2010.

Mould, Richard Francis (1980). A History of X-rays and Radium: With a Chapter on Radiation Units,

1895–1937. IPC Building & Contract Journals Ltd.. pp. 32.


Newcomb, Simon. (1903) “The Outlook for the Flying Machine,” The Independent: A Weekly

Magazine, 22 Oct 1903, p2508-12.

Noonan, P. S. (2007) "Designing, Selling a Hybrid Course." ORMS Today, v34 (4): 10.

Patel, Taran (2011) “Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods.” Opening Workshop for DBA

Programs 2011, Grenoble Ecole de Management, 21 Mar 2011.

Prahalad, C.K. and Gary Hamel, (1990) “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard

Business Review, May-June 1990.

Richard, F. (2001) "Mapping Language in Database Applications." Computer Programming.

Saavedra, Serguei, Felix Reed-Tsochas & Brian Uzzi, “A simple model of bipartite cooperation for

ecological and organizational networks,” Nature, 22 January 2009, p.457, 463-466.

Shakun, Melvin F. "Applying Evolutionary Systems Design." Group Decision & Negotiation 2009

Meeting. Toronto: CORS/INFORMS International, 2009. 25.

Szucs, D., and U. Goswami. "Educational Neuroscience: Defining a New Discipline for the Study of

Mental Representations." Mind, Brain, and Education, v1 (3) 2007: 114-127.

Taylor, Barry P. "Teaching ESL: Incorporating a Communicative, Student-centered Component." In

Methodology in TESOL. Newbury House Publishers, Inc, 1987.

Weaver, Gary. "The American Cultural Tapestry." Paper Presented at Al Yamamah University.

Riyadh: School of International Service at American University Division of International

Communication, 2008.

Welsh, Patrick. "Do Teachers Need Education Degrees?" The New York Times, Aug 16, 2009:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/education-degrees-and-teachers-pay/.

Wood, C. C., et al. "Steering Group Report." Brain Science as a Mutual Opportunity for the Physical

and Mathematical Sciences, Computer Science, and Engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science

Foundation, 2006.

Zernike, Kate. "Colleges Sweat Out Admissions This Year." The New York Times, Mar 8, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/education/08yield.html?em=&pagewanted=print.


7 Self- assessment In this proposal which part did you find the most difficult to write? And with which section were your most comfortable in completing?

The most difficult part to write was the literature survey and to design an appropriate structure for a

case study. I still need input from my supervisor in this section.

The Introduction and Problem Statement was the most comfortable for me to write.