Postgraduate Research Programmes Research Training ...

Postgraduate Research Programmes

Research Training Programme

Course Outlines 2021-22

Course Unit Outlines for our PhD programmes can be found as follows:

Accounting & Finance Pages 4-31

Business & Management Pages 32-80

Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Pages 81-87

Accounting & Finance

1

PGR Course Unit Outline 2021/2022

Unit code: BMAN 80900

Title: Advanced Accounting Research Seminars

Credit value: 30

Semester: The course runs over semesters 1 and 2

Course Coordinator contact details:

Professor Brendan O�DwyerRoom 4.084Email: [email protected]

Office hours: By appointment

Co-requisites: No co-requisites

Restrictions: The course is restricted to AMBS PhD in Accounting students. It is specifically designed for students following the qualitative research pathway on this programme.

Aims and Objectives (Learning outcomes)

The aims of this course are two-fold. First, the course seeks to provide PhD students with a broad-based overview of current research frontiers, recent developments and various methodological approaches in Accounting research. The course explicitly covers qualitative research across the areas of financial accounting, social and environmental accounting, auditing, accounting information systems, corporate governance, and management accounting. Although students will normally specialise in only one of these areas, it is important that they are aware of the breadth of qualitative research in Accounting. Second, the course aims to provide students with guidance and hands-on experience to assist them with writing and presenting academic research papers for conferences and journal publication.

On completion of this unit successful students will: Have knowledge and appreciation of research within their own

specialism in addition to other fields in accounting. Advance their ability to critically assess the academic work of others. Enhance their research paper writing skills. Enrich their presentation and discussion skills

Syllabus content

The content for the course varies from year to year. It is based on the presentation topics covered by invited academic speakers. Typically, it includes a range of qualitative research across the areas of financial accounting, social and environmental accounting, auditing, accounting information systems, corporate governance, and management accounting.

mailto:[email protected]

2

Methods of delivery

Lectures 2 hours per week over 15 weeks = 30 hours

Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours

N/A

Private Study 225 hours

Directed Reading 45 hours

Total Study Hours 300 hours

Reading List

Pre Reading:

Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2007) Constructing Mystery: Empirical Matters in Theory Development, Academy of Management Review 32, 1265-1281.

Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The role of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organization and Society, 5(1), 5�27.

Hopwood, A. (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2�3), 287�305.

Chua, W.F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought, The Accounting Review, 601-632.

Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. Handbook of Qualitative Research: 1-28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M. (2007) Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Review, 50 (1), 25- 32.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), pp. 219-245.

Humphrey, C. (2008) Auditing Research: A Review Across the Disciplinary Divide, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(2), 170-203.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

Swedberg, R. (2014). The Art of Social Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press

3

Core Text:

The core reading for the course varies from year to year. It is based on the presentation topics covered by the invited academic speakers. Further reading lists will be provided at the end of each lecture and they will typically include the presentation material and other materials that the speaker distributes during his/her session.

Supplementary text:

Boomsma, R. and O�Dwyer, B. (2019). �Constituting the governable NGO: The correlation between conduct and counter-conduct in the evolution of funder-NGO accountability relations�. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 72(1), pp. 1-20

Chapman, C., Cooper, D., & Miller, P. (2009). Accounting, Organizations & Institutions. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Cornelissen, J.P. (2017). Preserving Theoretical Divergence in Management Research: Why the Explanatory Potential of Qualitative Research Should Be Harnessed Rather than Suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (3), 368-383.

Fligstein, N. & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields, Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1-26.

Given. L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

Humphrey, C., O‟Dwyer, B, and Unerman, J. (2017). �Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields: the IIRC and the pursuit of Enlightened‟ corporate reporting�. Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 30-63

Hampel, C., Lawrence, T., & Tracey, P. (2017). Institutional Work: Taking Stock and Making It Matter. In: Greenwood, R., Lawrence, T., Oliver, C., & Meyer, R. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd edition California: Sage. 558-590.

Leibel, E., Hallett, T., & Bechky, B. (2018), Meaning at the source: The dynamics of field formation in institutional research, Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 154-177.

Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M., & Greenwood, R. (2017). Pathways of institutional change: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1885-1910.

Stark, D. (2009). The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D., & and C. Hinings. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals. 11(1), 391-450.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12210

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12210

4

Mode of Assessment Length required Weighting within unit

Assessment 1 (of 3): A synopsis of a research paper related to the student�s PhD topic (excluding references).

3 A4 pages due on Friday10 December, 2021 before15.00.

15%

Assessment 2 (of 3): Oral presentation of research paper synopsis in Assessment 1. This will be followed with a discussion.

Presentation onWednesday 15 December,2021

15%

Assessment 3 (of 3): A term paper that is linked to each student�s own PhD research. This is an exercise in writing a short, focused research paper. The format and standard of the term paper is that expected at a doctoral colloquium at an international research conference. This entails a clear anchoring of the paper in extant, relevant literature and an outline of how the research contributes to this body of research. Students have to demonstrate a clear ability to identify relevant problems and research questions and must present a coherent argument as to why further examination of these problems and research questions is relevant and valuable.

The term paper should also include an outline of the conceptual frameworks and methods to be used for examining these issues.

The term paper could include empirical material, such as a small pilot study, but this is not a requirement.

12 A4 pages due on Friday 6May, 2022 before 15.00.

70%

Assessment

5

Feedback

Formative written and verbal feedback will be provided as students are in the process of completing assignments.

Summative feedback will be provided within 15 working days of the formal submission of assignments.

Date coursework feedback will be returned:

15 working days after coursework is presented.

Methods of Feedback from Students/Course Unit Survey

The main channel will be via the course unit survey on BlackBoard. Regular communication with students is undertaken to encourage continual feedback.

6

Students should present all assessed coursework using the following Microsoft Word format.

Coursework presentation criteriaFont style Font style should normally be Times New RomanFont size Font size must be 12 point fontCharacter spacing(on the Format > Font menu)

Character scale must be 100% and spacing and position should be normal (the default options)

Margins You must use normal margins (2.5cm) (top, bottom, left and right)

Line spacing Line spacing must be 1.5 lines, with an extra line between paragraphs and headings

Alignment Justified

Important

Failure to follow the above presentation criteria will lead to penalties of 2 marks (for work marked out of 100%) for each criterion not followed. In addition, we may reformat your work in accordance with these criteria and apply further penalties if correct formatting means you have exceeded the set page length (see below).

Ensure you cite references in the main text correctly and list them all at the end in the references section. Incomplete or non-citation of sources incurs an automatic penalty of 5 marks (for coursework marked out of 100%).

Penalties for exceeding the page length:

If you do exceed the limit, the following penalties apply (for coursework marked out of 100%).

Penalties for exceeding the page lengthIf the work is no more than 10% over the limit, 10 marks deductedIf the work is more than 10% but less than 20% over the limit, 20 marks deducted

If the work is more than 20% but less than 50% over the limit, 50 marks deducted

If the work is 50% over the limit, A mark of zero awarded

Guidance on presentation of assessed coursework:

7

Referencing:

In the text we normally write something like, �Bradshaw (2002) and Demirakos et al. (2004) ��. Note that we refer to authors only by their surname (no first-name or initials). In the list of references we include:

o Bradshaw, M. 2002. The use of target prices to justify sell-side analysts' stock recommendations. Accounting Horizons 16, 27�41.

o Demirakos, E., Strong, N.C., Walker, M., 2004. What valuation model do analysts use? Accounting Horizons 18, 221�240.

References must be in alphabetical order by author surname and, if the same author(s) has more than one publication, in date order with the earliest publication first.

In the text (or in footnotes, where necessary) you should include citations as, for example, Fama (1970), Hew et al. (1998), (see Fama and French, 1994). Note that you should use �et al.� where there are more than two authors.2 Note also that if the passage that contains the citation is already in parentheses, we normally omit the parentheses around the year of the reference.

Where you refer to a very specific point in an article that is incidental to its main contribution, or where you include a quotation from an article, you should include a specific page reference to where the reader can find this in the original article. For example, �� Fama and French (1996, 45) refer to �� (where the page reference is page 45). You should not list references separately in footnotes. If the footnote itself includes text that contains a citation, you follow the same procedure as in the main text. You must make sure that all references appearing in your main text (and footnotes) are listed in the references at the end. Many students take too little care over references and lose marks as a result. Consult accounting and finance journal articles (or journal requirements under instructions for authors) for other examples.

Footnotes:Aim to minimise the number of footnotes as they generally interrupt the flow of text. Where a footnote is necessary, the footnote symbol must be arabic and must come after any punctuation signs (full stops, commas, etc.). For example, the footnote symbol should appear after a full-stop as here.1 It must not appear like this1. Onerationale for this practice is that many articles in accounting and finance use mathematical notation, in which case the reader could confuse �here2.� to mean �here squared� or �here to the power of two�, whereas �here.2� points the reader to the second footnote

2 Some journals require the first multiple-author citation to give all the author surnames(e.g. Demirakos, Strong, and Walker 2004), with subsequent citations of the same referencestating Demirakos et al. (2004). There is no standard convention on this, so either approach isacceptable.

Alliance Manchester Business School

8

Unless it would be misleading, you should generally put footnote symbols at the end of sentences, as reading a footnote half way through a sentence interrupts the flow of the sentence. The text of the footnote should appear at the bottom of the corresponding page (unless formatting forces it onto the next page). This is more convenient for the reader.

Writing style:

You must write the paper in good style with a good structure of well-written, linked paragraphs. Consult books on writing style or on study skills or look at journal articles for guidance and examples of this. Avoid writing in note form or in very short paragraphs. Paragraphs hardly ever consist of one sentence. A series of short paragraphs gives an impression of fragmented ideas with little structure.

You should always use a spelling and grammar tool to check the standard of your writing. This is necessary but far from sufficient�for example, the grammar tool in Word is very poor at detecting grammatical errors. You need to check and try to improve grammar yourself. You should be particularly careful about singular and plural nouns and whether you need to use or omit the definite or indefinite article (�the�, �a�). Normally, it is better to write in the present tense; say �Lamont (2001) uses the term �economic tracking portfolio� �� rather than �Lamont (2001) used the term �economic tracking portfolio� ��. However, using the present tense can sometimes sound odd, in which case it will be necessary to depart from this general advice.

Books normally leave a slightly larger space between sentences than between words within a sentence. The easiest way to do this in most word-processing packages is to leave two spaces after a full stop that ends a sentence (as in this document). A type- setting package such as LaTeX does this automatically for you.

Although it is not essential, you should try to write in the active voice rather than the passive voice (write �Fama and French find a clear relation �� rather than �A clear relation � is found by Fama and French�, �I select companies based on �� rather than �Companies were selected based on ��, etc.). The active voice is more direct, more concise and the more modern approach to academic writing. The passive voice often sounds stilted, pedantic, and old-fashioned. In some cases you may find it difficult to avoid using the passive voice, but you can often re-phrase sentences or passages to use the active voice and eventually this will come naturally.

Formatting points as follows:� Use 1.5 spacing� Use Times New Roman as your font� Justify your text, including footnotes.

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/


9

Plagiarism:All work submitted by a student must be the work of the student. The following is an outline of the rules on plagiarism. You can find full details of plagiarism in your programme handbook.

Plagiarism is the theft or use of someone else�s work without proper acknowledgment, presenting the material as if it is one�s own. Unacknowledged direct copying from the work of another person, or the close paraphrasing of somebody else�s work, is plagiarism. This applies to copying from other students� work and from published sources such as books, reports, working papers, or journal articles.

When quoting word-for-word from the work of another person you must use quotation marks or indenting (setting the quotation in from the margin) and you must acknowledge the source of the quoted material. Quoting from the work of others is acceptable, but you should not use it so excessively that it interrupts the flow of what should be a dissertation written in your own words.

Paraphrasing, when the original statement is still identifiable and has no acknowledgement, is plagiarism. Taking a piece of text, from whatever source, and substituting words or phrases with other words or phrases is plagiarism. Any paraphrase of another person�s work must have an acknowledgement to the source. It is not acceptable to put together unacknowledged passages from the same or from different sources, linking these together with a few words or sentences of your own and changing a few words from the original text: this constitutes over- dependence on other sources, which is a form of plagiarism.



1

Doctoral Programme Course Unit Outline 2021/22

Unit code: BMAN 80842Title: Market Based Accounting ResearchCredit value: 15Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Professor Edward Lee, AMBS 4.035, 54564, [email protected] , office hours: TBA

Other staff involved contact details:

N/A

Pre-requisitesCo-requisitesDependent course unitsRestrictions

N/A

Course unit overviewThis course is designed to strengthen the research skill set quantitative accounting PhD students in two ways. First, it enhance their awareness and understanding of an essential and fundamental strand of accounting literature. Second, it improves their critical thinking and evaluation of empirical accounting research. Market based accounting research examines the relationship between accounting information and capital markets. This literature has evolved through 50 years of distinguished history and development to form the foundation of quantitative accounting research today, and its theories and evidence continues to inform and contribute to important debates and decisions among academics, practitioners, and policy makers.AimsThe purpose of this course is to provide PhD students with broad overview and critical assessment of the market-based accounting research (MBAR) literature.Objectives (Learning outcomes) Demonstrate knowledge of the key concepts, literatures, methodologies, and inferences associated

with capital markets research in accounting. Formulate and evaluate research questions and designs, by synthesising the relevant intuitions,

literatures, and methodologies. Understand the strengths and weaknesses of empirical evidence acquired from the large sample

quantitative analyses of accounting and financial market data.Syllabus contentCore topics includes an overview of MBAR, security valuation, market information efficiency, contracting, disclosure regulations, financial reporting quality, and financial analysts. Additional topics more directly related to the PhD thesis of students will also be incorporated through the presentation and discussion of selected research papers.Methods of deliveryLectures 2 hours per week, 10 weeks in totalSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours N/AIndependent Study 130 hoursTotal Study Hours 150 hours



2

Reading List Session 1: Introduction

Main reading: Ball, R., Brown, P. 2014. Ball and Brown (1968): A retrospective. The Accounting Review

89, 1�26. Collins, D., Maydew, E., Weiss, I. 1997. Changes in the value relevance of earnings and

book values over the past forty years. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 39�67. Further reading:

Kothari, S. P. 2001. Capital markets research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 105�231.

Kothari, S. P., Wasley, C. 2019. Commemorating the fifty-year anniversary of Ball and Brown (1968): The evolution of capital market research over past fifty years. Journal of Accounting Research 57, 1117-1159

Session 2: Fundamental analysis and security valuation Main reading:

Frankel, R. Lee. 1998. Accounting valuation, market expectation, and cross-sectional stock returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25, 283�319.

Mohanram, P., Saiy, S., Vyas, D. 2018. Fundamental analysis of banks: The use of financial statement information to screen winners from losers. Review of Accounting Studies 23, 200-233.

Further reading: Barth, M, Beaver, W., Landsman, W. 2001. The relevance of the value relevance literature

for financial accounting standard setting: Another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 77�104.

Session 3: Market information efficiency Main reading:

Fama, E., French, K. 1996. Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. Journal of Finance 51, 55-84.

Hung, M., Li, X., Wang, S. 2015. Post-earnings announcement drift in global markets: Evidence from an information shock. Review of Financial Studies 28, 1242-1283.

Further reading: Richardson, S., Tuna, I., Wysocki, P. 2010. Accounting anomalies and fundamental analysis: A

review of recent research advances. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50, 410�454.

Session 4: Contracting effect Main reading:

Ball, R., Robin, A., Sadka, G. 2008. Is financial reporting shaped by equity markets or by debt markets? An international study of timeliness and conservatism. Review of Accounting Studies 13, 168�205.

Basu, S. 1997. The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 3�37.

Further reading: Armstrong, C., Guay, W., Weber, J. 2010. The role of information and financial reporting in

corporate governance and debt contracting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50, 179�234.



3

Session 5: Disclosure regulation Main reading:

Barth, M., Landsman, W., Lang, M. 2008. International accounting standards and accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research 46, 467�498.

Chen, K., Yuan, H. 2004. Earnings management and capital resource allocation: Evidence from China�s accounting-based regulation of rights issues. The Accounting Review 79, 645�665

Further reading: Leuz, C., Wysocki, P. 2016. The economics of disclosure and financial reporting regulation:

Evidence and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Research 54, 525�622.

Session 6: Financial information intermediation Main reading:

Dhaliwal, D., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., Yang, Y. 2012. Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review 87, 723-759.

Lang, M., Lundholm, R. 1996. Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behaviour. The Accounting Review 71, 467�492.

Further reading: Beyer, A., Cohen, D., Lys, T., Walther, B. 2010. The financial reporting environment: Review

of recent literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50, 296�343.

Session 7: Financial reporting quality Main reading:

Dechow, P., Ge, W., Larson, C., Sloan, R. 2011. Predicting material accounting statements. Contemporary Accounting Research 28, 17�82.

Tucker, J., Zarowin, P. 2006. Does income smoothing improve earnings informativeness? The Accounting Review 81, 251�270.

Further reading: Dechow, P., Ge, W., Schrand, C. 2010. Understanding earnings quality: A review of the

proxies, their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics50, 344�401.

Session 8: Accounting research and journal publication Further reading:

Barth, M. 2018. Accounting in 2036: A learned profession: Part I: The role of research. The Accounting Review 93, 383-385.

Dechow, P., Sloan, R., and Zeng, J. 2020. Is it a home run? Measuring relative citation rates in Accounting research.

Oler, D., Oler, M., Skousen, C., Talakai, J. 2016. Has concentration in the top accounting journals changed over time? Accounting Horizons 30, 63�78.

Schrand, C. 2019. Impediments to relevant research: The journal review and publication process. Accounting Horizons, 33, 11-16.

Session 9: Student presentations

Session 10: Student presentations



4

Assessment


1. Research paper presentation

30-minute presentation of a selected research paper, with the student playing conference presenter�s role.

50%

2. Discussant presentation 15-minute presentation to discuss a selected research paper, with the student playing conference discussant�s role.

25%

3. Q&A participation In class participation in discussions throughout the course.

25%

Resits Students will review an academic research paper allocated to them, playing the role of an academic journal referee, and submit a detailed referee review report that provides a constructive and critical evaluation of the paper. The report will be between 3 to 5 pages long before reference list (Times New Roman size 12 font, 1.5 line spacing, and 2.54 cm margin on all 4 sides).

Feedback methodsFeedback to students:In class discussions, email exchanges, and overall feedback sheet (containing presentation, participation, and coursework components)

Feedback from students:In addition to the course unit evaluation questionnaire, students are encouraged to give feedback through emails and conversations at any time, and using the online questionnaire near the end of the semester.



PGR Course unit outline 2021/22

Unit code: BMAN80271Title: Advanced Financial Accounting Theory Credit value: 15Semester: 1st Course Coordinator contact details:

George Voulgaris ([email protected])


Patrick Ryu (email tbc)


Students should normally have a first degree that includes subjects in accounting and training in economics

AimsThe course covers key theoretical areas of financial accounting research. It provides a crucial link to the literature for students seeking to strengthen the theoretical foundations of their empirical research. The underlying perspective is an economic one and implicitly assumes a stock market setting defines the corporate financial information environment.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)By the end of the course, students will be able to understand four fundamental theoretical areas that underpin research in financial accounting, namely mandatory financial disclosure, voluntary financial disclosure, the politics of accounting regulation, and agency and contracting theory. Syllabus contentThe course covers four topics as follows:

The social value of (mandatory) financial disclosureVoluntary financial disclosureThe role of regulation in accounting researchAgency and contracting theory

Methods of deliveryLectures 4 weeks of 3-hour asynchronous online sessionsSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours 4 weeks of 2-hour synchronous online sessions

Independent Study 130 hours


Reading ListFor each topic, the lecturers will be providing a list of reading and resources as part of the lecture notes

Assessment



Mode of Assessment Length required Weighting within unitWrite a term paper that summarizes and demonstrates your knowledge and understanding of each of the four topics from the course.

Students must submit their coursework via Blackboard/Turnitin by 12pm on Friday, 7 January 2022

8 pages maximum 100%

Resits: Coursework

Feedback methodsWe provide written, formative and summative feedback on the term paper within 15 working days of the submission deadline.

Feedback from studentsThe main channel is via the course unit survey on Blackboard. We also encourage students to provide feedback, verbally or in writing by email, to the course lecturers.



Unit code: BMAN 80281Title: Advanced Finance Research Seminar 1Credit value: 15 Semester: 1Course Coordinator contact details:

Eirini Konstantinidi Office: AMBS 4.060Email: [email protected]: +44 (0) 161 275 4005Office hours: Thursday 9-11


This is a seminar based course. In each session there is an invited speaker. The speakers are all colleagues such as Kevin Aretz, Michael Brennan, Hening Liu, Norman Strong, Alex Taylor, Sarah Zhang etc.

Pre-requisitesCo-requisitesDependent course unitsRestrictionsCourse unit overview

The purpose is to expose PGR students in Finance to recent and current developments in Finance research.

AimsThe purpose is to expose PGR students in Finance to recent and current developments in Finance research.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to have an appreciation and understanding of key research in asset pricing. Students will also have an understanding of how to write a referee report and critically evaluate research papers.

The students will develop skills essential for job placements in the finance industry and in academia.

Syllabus contentEach week a different finance research topic will be discussed and analysed in class, covering recent and current developments. Over the past years, we have covered topics such as event studies, return predictability, the equity premium puzzle, structural estimation of asset pricing models, skewness in asset pricing, high-frequency econometrics and volatility estimation, market microstructure etc.

The detailed teaching schedule is to be announced in due course via Blackboard. This course covers various topics, such as event studies, estimation of asset pricing models, the equity premium puzzle, return predictability etc.



Methods of deliveryLectures 30 hours (3 x 10)Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours None



Reading ListThe detailed reading list includes a number of asset pricing papers and is to be announced in due course via Blackboard. Students are expected to study the assigned readings before the class, and actively participate in the discussion.

Pre Reading: Reference list provided from each seminar speaker. This will be made available via Blackboard in due course.

Core Text: Reference list provided from each seminar speaker. This will be made available via Blackboard in due course.

Supplementary Text: Reference list provided from each seminar speaker. This will be made available via Blackboard in due course.

Assessment


Reflective term paper 10 pages of A4 100%

Students are required to write a reflective term paper based on the contents of each of the sessions. The term paper should seek to establish the importance and relevance of the material studied and the distinctive contribution of the work(s) to the field of Finance. The page limit for this term paper is 10 sides of A4 (excluding title page and reference list). Detailed requirements on presentation of coursework are at the end of this document.

Deadline for submission: The deadline for submission is 3.00pm on January 10th 2022 (Monday).

Please submit your term paper via Blackboard.

Resits: Coursework

Feedback methodsWritten feedback will be provided for both the reflective term paper and the referee report. This will be returned within 15 working days of the submission deadline.

Feedback from students

Students are asked to provide feedback on administrative, short and long term course development either verbally during office hours or by email throughout the whole duration of the course. All students are also


Alliance Manchester Business Schoolinvited to provide feedback at the end of the semester through the course evaluation questionnaire.




Unit code: BMAN80292Title: Advanced Finance Research Seminar 2Credit value: 15Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Professor Ian Garrett ([email protected]), AMBS 4.078, ext. 54958, office hours to be announced


N/A


This is a core course for the Accounting and Finance stream.

Course unit overviewThis course is a presentation-based course designed to get you used to presenting your work in front of your colleagues and peers. A key component of the PhD programme is presenting your research, not necessarily just in the annual review but at conferences as well. This course is designed to provide a foundation for this and to give you some experience of what can be a daunting prospect: standing up in front of your peers, talking about your research and answering questions about your research from the audience.

Aims

To become more confident in presenting and discussing your research To improve presentational skills

Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

Understand how to present their research to a wider audience

Understand the differences required in preparing slides for conferences, workshops and research seminars

Syllabus contentThis is a very flexible course that can fit around what is required in your other courses. Contact varies depending on how many take the course; in previous years the �mini-conferences�/presentation days have taken place over between two and four days. There will be two formal lecture-style sessions at the start of the course (they are a mix of lecture, workshop and tutorial); the presentations will take place roughly mid-way through the course and just prior to the AMBS Doctoral Conference.

Methods of deliveryLectures 2 x 3 hoursSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours This is dependent upon the number of students

on the course: more detail will be provided once course numbers are available.


To give you an idea of what is involved time-wise, the presentation sessions are organised as mini conferences which you will all attend and present at. In 2018/19 there were seven students on the course so the presentations were organised across four days in total. If there are fewer than seven, students, you can expect the sessions to be organised across two or three days in total; if there are more, you can expect the sessions to be organised across four or more days in total.

Independent StudyTotal Study Hours 150

Reading ListAs the course is a presentation-based course and the presentations themselves are based on your research topics, there is no pre-reading, core text or core reading for the course. Reading for the course will be based on papers that are central to your research questions. Reading will therefore be advised as the course proceeds.

Assessment


Two individual presentations:1. Presentation and discussion of a paper that

is key to your research question. A hybrid of your AMBS Doctoral Conference presentation and your Annual Review presentation.

Approximately 20 minutes

Approximately 30 minutes

30%

70%

Resits: Repeat presentations.

Feedback methods

Feedback will be given in the presentation sessions themselves. The feedback will focus on slide design, content of the presentation, presentation style and the like. More generally, I am happy to have individual meetings at any time throughout the course and after the sessions if there are any aspects of the presentations you would like to talk about in more detail that perhaps we did not have time to cover in the sessions.



Unit code: BMAN80312Title: Advanced Corporate FinanceCredit value: 15Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Stefan PetryRoom 5.021, [email protected]


Ning Gao, Viet Dang, Roberto Mura, Kostas Stathopoulos

Pre-requisitesCo-requisitesDependent course unitsRestrictionsCourse unit overview

AimsThe course aims at providing the appropriate instruments to pursue empirical research in Corporate Finance. In particular, it starts with a two days training session on STATA, followed by a number of lectures that will cover the following topics in Corporate Finance: capital structure, corporate governance and control, M&A, and risk-taking.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)

On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

� Use STATA in its basic and more advanced features to conduct empirical analysis

� Understand the: - financing choices of firms with links to corporate finance and shortselling topics; - monitoring issues within companies (Corporate Governance and control topic); - payout and investment choices of firms (payout policy, M&A and risktaking)

Syllabus contentThe first part of the course is dedicated to build the basic/intermediate knowledge in STATA. In particular:

1. Introduction to STATA (Session leader: Prof. Roberto Mura, 2 6-hours sessions). Session I covers the following subjects: � Starting up � Creating and saving programs and output � Manipulating multiple datasets � �Looping� � Describing the data � Constructing variables � Repeated observations for the same company � Tests of means, medians, and correlation matrices � Graphs � The basic idea underlying linear regression � Single variable OLS � Correctly interpreting the coefficients




Session II covers the following subjects: � Multiple regression � Heteroskedasticity � Correlated errors � Multicollinearity � Panel data analysis: the basic idea; Linear regression, GMM

Please note that the STATA training is a compulsory part for those students enrolled in BMAN80312. Students not enrolled into this module can attend and participate to the training sessions anyway.

The second part of the module is dedicated to the discussion of three specific areas in Corporate Finance. The focus of these lectures will be mainly empirical. Each lecture will provide: - general introduction to a specific topic; - presentation and discussion of very recent empirical papers that are at the frontier of the literature in that specific area - when necessary (at the lecturer�s discretion), detailed discussion of some specific empirical techniques (i.e, event study methodology, dynamic panel data, etc etc) that may complement the STATA training sessions in the first part of the module.

Every lecture will be at least of 3 hours (no more than 5/6 hours, at the discretion of each lecturer).

In particular:

a. How firms raise finance resources:

2. Financial risk (Session leader: Dr. Stefan Petry) The session aims to provide a better understanding of (financial) risk and its proxies used in the empirical finance literature. The session starts with a brief review of the (theoretical) definition of financial risk. It then looks at various research areas that have made recent contributions in terms of methodology and/or by improving our understanding of what the risk proxies measure. It concludes with a discussion of potential directions for future research in these areas.

3. Capital Structure (Session leader: Prof. Viet Dang) The use of the agency costs and asymmetric information perspectives as main explanations of maturity choices will be analysed in this section. This session will be devoted to a brief discussion of the theoretical background and a more detailed presentation of the most and recent empirical papers in this area.

b. How firms are monitored in managing their resources:

4. Corporate Governance: (Session leader: Prof. Konstantinos Stathopoulos) This session provides an overview of the latest empirical evidence on Corporate Governance (CG). It summarizes the evidence on the role of the major CG mechanisms, internal and external, and presents current CG systems and practices together with potential future research areas. There will be an extensive discussion of a couple papers primarily focusing on conceptual and methodological issues.

c. How firms invest their resources:

5. Investment decisions and risk-taking (Session leader: Prof. Roberto Mura) This session aims at discussing in detail the most recent developments in the literature about risk-taking. First, it provides a general background about the literature on risktaking from companies. Then, it discusses the recent empirical development in this literature taking into account the international perspective, the link between risk-taking and economic growth and the link between risk-taking and portfolio diversification.



6. M&A (Session leader: Dr. Ning Gao) This session will provide an introduction to research questions in the area of corporate merger and acquisitions (M&A), recent development in this area, and related empirical techniques. It will focus on two specific topics: performance of merging firms and the effects of cash in takeovers.

Methods of deliveryLectures 12 (Section I)+15(Section II)Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours

Independent Study 123

Total Study Hours 150

Reading List

Pre-requisites BMAN71152 Corporate Finance or equivalent. Students are expected to be familiar with the fundamental theories on capital structure: Modigliani-Miller Theorem, Static Trade-off theory and Pecking Order theory. Relevant readings are Modigliani and Miller (1958, AER), Myers (1984, JF) and Myers and Majluf (1984, JFE).

Preliminary (provisional) reading for each topic:

1. Financial risk Augustin, P., Subrahmanyam, M.G., Tang, D.Y., Wang, S.Q., 2014. Credit Default Swaps: A Survey. Foundations and Trends in Finance 9, 1�196. Bartram, S.M., Brown, G.W., Waller, W., 2015. How important is financial risk? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 50, 801�824. Choi, J. and M. Richardson, 2016. The volatility of a firm�s assets and the leverage effect. Journal of Financial Economics 121, 254�277. Dyer, T., Lang, M., Stice-Lawrence, L., 2017. The evolution of 10-K textual disclosure: Evidence from Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 64, 221�245. Fracassi, C., Petry, S., Tate, G., 2016. Does rating analyst subjectivity affect corporate debt pricing? Journal of Financial Economics 120, 514�538. Modigliani, F. and M. Miller. The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment, American Economic Review 48, 261�297.

2. Capital StructureAgrawal, A.K. and Matsa, D.A., 2013. Labor Unemployment Risk and Corporate Financing Decisions. Journal of Financial Economics 108(2), 449�470. Elsas, R., Florysiak, D., 2015. Dynamic Capital Structure Adjustment and the Impact of Fractional Dependent Variables. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 50, 1105�1133. Faulkender, M., Flannery, M.J., Hankins, K.W., Smith, J.M., 2012. Cash Flows and Leverage Adjustments. Journal of Financial Economics 103, 632�646. Frank, M.Z., Goyal, V.K., 2008. Chapter 12 - Trade-Off and Pecking Order Theories of Debt in Eckbo, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Empirical Corporate Finance. Elsevier, San Diego, 135�202. Graham, J.R. and Leary, M.T., 2011. A Review of Empirical Capital Structure Research and Directions for the Future. Annual Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 3. Heider, F. and Ljungqvist, A., 2015. As Certain as Debt and Taxes: Estimating the Tax Sensitivity of Leverage from State Tax Changes. Journal of Financial Economics 118, 684�712. Klasa, S., H. Ortiz-Molina, M. Serfling, and S. Srinivasan. 2018. Protection of Trade Secrets and Capital Structure Decisions. Journal of Financial Economics 128, 26686. Öztekin, Ö., Flannery, M.J., 2012. Institutional Determinants of Capital Structure


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolAdjustment Speeds. Journal of Financial Economics 103, 88�112. Serfling, M. 2016. Firing Costs and Capital Structure Decisions. Journal of Finance 71, 2239�86.

3. Corporate Governance Bebchuk, L. A., J. M. Fried, and D. I. Walker, (2002), �Managerial power and rent extraction in the design of executive compensation�, The University of Chicago Law Review 69, 751-846. Demsetz, H. and K. Lehn, (1985), �The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences�, Journal of Political Economy 93, 1155-1177. Denis, Diane K. and McConnell, John J., "International Corporate Governance" (January 2003). ECGI - Finance Working Paper No. 05/2003; and Tuck-JQFA Contemporary Corporate Governance Issues II Conference. http://ssrn.com/abstract=320121 Jensen, M., and W. H. Meckling, (1976), �Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure�, Journal of Financial Economics 3, (4) 305-360. Murphy, K. J., (2002), �Explaining executive compensation: Managerial power versus the perceived cost of stock options�, The University of Chicago Law Review 69, 846869. Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny, (1997), �A Survey of Corporate Governance�, Journal of Finance 52, 737-783.

4. Risk-taking Acemoglu, Daron, and Fabrizio Zilibotti, 1997, �Was Prometheus Unbound by Chance? Risk, Diversification, and Growth,� Journal of Political Economy, 105: 709-751. Agrawal, Anup, and Gershon N. Mandelker, G., 1987, �Managerial Incentives and Corporate Investment and Financing Decisions,� Journal of Finance, 42(4): 823� 837. Amihud, Yakov, and Baruch Lev, 1981, �Risk Reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate Mergers,� The Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2): 605-617. Anderson, Ronald C., and David M. Reeb, 2003, �Founding-Family Ownership, Corporate Diversification, and Firm Leverage,� Journal of Law and Economics, 46: 653-684. Coles, Jeffrey L., Naveen D. Daniel, and Lalitha Naveen, 2006, �Managerial Incentives and Risk-Taking,� Journal of Financial Economics, 79: 431-468. Faccio, M., Marchica, M.T., and R. Mura, 2010, Large shareholder diversification and corporate risk-taking, working paper. John, Kose, Lubomir Litov, and Bernard Yeung, 2008, �Corporate Governance and RiskTaking,� Journal of Finance, 63(4): 1679-1728. Kempf, Alexander, Stefan Ruenzi, and Tanja Thiele, 2009, �Employment Risk, Compensation Incentives, and Managerial Risk Taking: Evidence From the Mutual Fund Industry,� Journal of Financial Economics, 92: 92-108. Saunders, Anthony, Elizabeth Strock, and Nickolaos G. Travlos, 1990, �Ownership Structure, Deregulation, and Bank Risk Taking,� Journal of Finance, 45: 643-654.

5. M&A a. Performance of merging firms Martin, K. J., 1996. The method of payment in corporate acquisitions, investment opportunities, and management ownership. Journal of Finance 51, 1227�1246. Travlos, N. G., 1987. Corporate takeover bids, methods of payment and bidding firms� stock returns. Journal of Finance 42, 943�963. Gao, N. and W. Liu, 2016. Liquidity benefits and acquirer long-term performance. Working paper, the University of Manchester. Serveas, H., 1991. Tobin�s Q and the gains from takeovers. Journal of Finance 46, 409� 419. Rau, P.R. and T. Vermaelen, 1998. Glamour, value and the post-acquisition performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics 49, 223�253.

b. The effects of cash in takeovers Harford, J., 1999. Corporate cash reserves and acquisitions. Journal of Finance 54, 1969� 1997. Harford, J., S.A.Mansi, and W.F.Maxwell, 2008. Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US. The Journal of Financial Economics 87, 535�555. Gao, N., 2009. The adverse selection effect of corporate cash reserve: Evidence from acquisitions solely finance by stock. Journal of Corporate Finance 17(4), 798� 808. Gao N. and A. Mohammed, 2016. Cash-rich acquirers do not make bad acquisitions: new evidence.


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolWorking paper.

c. Additional readings Merger Waves Rhodes-Kropf, M., D. T. Robinson and S. Viswanathan, 2005. Valuation waves and merger activity: the empirical evidence. Journal of Financial Economics 77, 561� 603. Mitchell and Mulherin, 1996. The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. Journal of Financial Economics 41, 193�229. Shleifer, A. and R. W. Vishny, 2003. Stock market driven acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics 70, 295�311. Rhodes-Kropf, M. and S. Viswanathan, 2004. Market valuation and merger waves. The Journal of Finance 60, 2685�2718.

Agency, antitakeover and the market for corporate control Gompers, P., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick, 2003. Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 107�155. Bebchuk, Cohen, and Ferrel, 2009. What matters in corporate governance? Review of Financial Studies 22, 783�827. Morck, R., A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny, 1990. Do managerial objectives drive bad acquisitions? Journal of Finance 45, 31�48. Jensen and Ruback, 1983. The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics 11, 5�50. Schlingemann, F. P., 2004. Financing decisions and bidder gains. Journal of Corporate Finance 10, 683�701.

Means of payment Faccio and Masulis, 2005. The choice of payment method in European merger and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance 60, 1345�1388. Hansen, Robert G., 1987, A theory for the choice of exchange medium in mergers and acquisitions, Journal of Business 60, 75-95. Fishman, M.J., 1989. Preemptive bidding and the role of the medium of exchange in acquisitions. J. Finance 44, 41�57.

Assessment


As the focus of this module is mainly empirical, students will be required: - to replicate the results of existing empirical papers (or some parts of them) in a specific topic (conditional on the availability of data and/or complexity of the analysis) AND/OR - to critical discuss existing empirical papers (other than those presented during the class).

Assessment will be via two term papers of 2,000 words each. Each term paper should include the relevant reference list (which is not taken into account in the words count).

Suggested topics and reading will be set by the lecturers of the course, and assessed by them. All papers must be submitted by the 17th of April 2020 to Mark Falzon ([email protected]). Each


Alliance Manchester Business Schoolterm paper should be sent in a separate file.

Resits: by coursework

Feedback methodsInformal advice and discussion will be provided during lectures.

Written comments will be provided on the term paper. These will be available either via Turnitin on Blackboard or from the Doctoral Programmes Office.




Unit code: BMAN80931Title: Advanced Finance TheoryCredit value: 15 creditsSemester: Semester 1Course Coordinator contact details:

Prof. Hening Liu, Room 4.080 AMBS West,

[email protected]

Office hours: by appointmentOther staff involved contact details:

N/A


Limited to PhD students with a finance major

Course unit overviewThis is a PhD course in asset pricing theory. The course covers various aspects of equilibrium asset prices in dynamic economies. Topics to be covered include: 1) utility preferences, 2) mean-variance theory and the CAPM, 3) stochastic discount factor, 4) the Arrow-Debreu economy and state prices, 5) dynamic programming, 6) consumption-based asset pricing, and 7) production-based asset pricing.

AimsThe aims of this course are to introduce students to the main asset pricing theories that are fundamental to research development in finance and to provide an understanding of how asset pricing models are formally constructed.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to have 1) an understanding of key elements in the mainstream asset pricing theories, 2) systematic knowledge in both implications of asset pricing models and empirical implementations.

Syllabus contentPrerequisitesStudents are required to have working understanding in calculus, probability theory, stochastic processes and matrix algebra. Basic knowledge in stocks, bonds, and derivatives is required. Basic knowledge in stochastic calculus is helpful, but not required. Programming skills are a plus. You may refer to the following useful materials

Topics1. Utility preferences2. Mean-variance theory and the CAPM3. Stochastic discount factor4. General equilibrium and the Arrow-Debreu economy


5. Dynamic programming6. Consumption-based asset pricing7. Production-based asset pricing

Methods of deliveryLectures 3 hours per week, 10 weeksSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours N/A

Independent Study 120 hours Total Study Hours 150 hours

Reading ListPre Reading: Chapter 1-2 and Appendices, Munk, Claus, �Financial Asset Pricing Theory�, Oxford University Press 2013.Core Text: Munk, Claus, �Financial Asset Pricing Theory�, Oxford University Press 2013.Supplementary Text: Back, Kerry, �Asset Pricing and Portfolio Choice Theory�, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2017.Assessment


Problem sets (including both qualitative and quantitative questions; computer programming will be required)

Submission deadline: 31st, January, 2022

100%

Resits: Problem sets (including both qualitative and quantitative questions; computer programming will be required)Feedback methodsDetailed feedback (both formative and summative) on the coursework will be provided via Blackboard.

Business & Management


Doctoral ProgrammeCourse Unit Outline 2021/22

Unit code: BMAN 80921Title: Research Process 1 (RP1) Literature ReviewCredit value: 15Semester: 1Course Coordinator contact details:

Heiner Evanschitzky, [email protected]


Laszlo Czaban, [email protected] Martínez Lucio [email protected]

Pre-requisitesCo-requisitesDependent course unitsRestrictionsCourse unit overviewThe course provides an introduction to the PhD process. Specifically, it focusses on developing a literature review with a view to setting-up your own research questions. Classes cover both practical and intellectual aspects of defining, analysing and reviewing the literature relevant for your thesis or dissertation. AimsThe overall goal of RP1 is for doctoral students to understand the scientific research process in order to help them define and develop their own research project in relation to the academic literature and the methodological requirements.

(1) To acquire a foundational understanding of epistemology and philosophy of science

(2) To provide an introduction to the academic research process

(3) To identify meaningful and interesting research questions

(4) To understand and appreciate different types of literature reviews

(5) To understand the basic choice of research methodologies


Understand the epistemological underpinnings of research Understand the principles of selecting and formulating research topics Conduct different types of literature reviews Formulate a research gap on the basis of (systematic/specific) literature review(s) Appreciate the interdependencies between formulating research topics, research questions,

research hypotheses and selecting research methodologies

Syllabus content





Alliance Manchester Business SchoolThe course is divided into five sessions and one Q&A surgery.

Session 1: The PhD research process: How to make a contribution Session 2: Types of literature reviews: overviewSession 3: Towards qualitative and critical literature reviews Session 4: Epistemology/philosophy of science Session 5: Surgery Q&A sessionSession 6: Student presentations (�mini conference�)

Methods of deliveryPre-reading 20 hoursWorkshops/lectures/surgery/conference 30 hoursIndependent Study 100 hoursTotal Study Hours 150 hoursReading ListPre Reading:

Various Authors (2011-2012), �Publishing in AMJ,� Academy of Management Journal, Various Editorials. (pdf will be provided)

Appendix: Overview of systematic literature reviews

Core Text: Hart, C., (2018): Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination,

Sage Sayer, A. (2010) Method in Social Science, Routledge. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and

systematic techniques.

Supplementary Text:Textbooks

Archer, M. (2012): The Reflexive Imperative, Cambridge University Press. Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2020). Doing critical research. SAGE Publications Limited. Chalmers, A. (2013): What is this thing called Science? Queensland University Press. Hair, J. et al. (various editions; various author teams): Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall. Hart C. (2018) Doing a Literature Review London: Sage Hollis, M. (1996): The Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press. Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (2004): Methods of Meta-Analysis, Correcting Error and Bias in

Research Findings, Sage. Kelemen, M. L., & Rumens, N. (2008). An introduction to critical management research. Sage. Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.T. (2001): Practical Meta-Analysis, Sage. Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Murray R., (2002): How to Write a Thesis, Open University Press. Ridley, D. (2008): The Literature Review. A Step-by-step Guide for Students, Sage. Saunders, N.K., Lewis, P, Thornhill (2016) �Chapter 3: Critically reviewing the literature� Research

Methods for Business Students Pearson Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (2016) Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduate Students London

Sage


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolMethods-Papers.

Bartunek, J.M., Rynes, S.L. & Ireland, R.D (2006): What makes interesting research and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49, 9-15.

Boyack, K.W. & Klavans, R. (2010): Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389�2404.

Chen, C. (2006): CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature, Journal of the Association for information science and technology, 57(3), 359-377.

Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009): A Review and Evaluation of Meta-Analysis Practices in Management Research, Journal of Management, 35(2), 393�419.

Hood, W., & Wilson, C. (2001): The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291�304.

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C.F. (2014): A topical history of JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 84�91.

Kincaid, H. (1990): Defending Laws in the Social Sciences, Philosophy of Social Sciences, 20, 56-83. Locke, K. & Golden-Biddle, K (1997): �Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring

coherence and �problematizing� in organization studies,� Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1023-1062.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003), �Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review� British Journal of Management 14: 207-222.

Applications Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R.J. & Jiang, Y. (2012): �Success Factors of Product

Innovation: An Updated Meta-Analysis,� Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29 (S1), 21-37.

Gurzki, H., Woisetschläger, D.M. (2017): �Mapping the luxury research landscape: A bibliometric citation analysis,� Journal of Business Research, 77, 147-166.

Gonzalez Menéndez, M., & Martinez Lucio M. (2020). Voice across borders: comparing and explaining the dynamics and politics of participation in a context of change. In Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T., & Freeman, R. B. (Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing. (an example of mapping a debate)

Martinez Lucio, (2010) �Labour process and Marxist perspectives on employee participation.� In Wilkison, A., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M. and Lewin, D. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations. (an example of a review of the politics of research and the emergence of gaps) Oxford OUP

Wilkinson, A., Knoll, M., Mowbray, P.K. and Dundon T. (2021) New Trajectories in Worker Voice: Integrating and Applying Contemporary Challenges in the Organization of Work British Journal of Management forthcoming (an example of a reflective review of worker voice)

�Classics� Feyerabend, P (1975): Against Method, New Left Books. Kuhn, T.S (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1977): The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change,

University of Chicago Press. pp. 320-339. Popper, K. (1974): Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge.



Assessment

Mode of Assessment Length required Weighting within unitThe course is assessed by means of a piece of written literature analysis and review. Students can choose (in close coordination with their supervisor and the course tutor) which type of literature review they want to do. They are required to submit a 3,000-word literature review and a 15-minute presentation.

3,000 words

Presentation

50%

50%

Resits: The same as the original assignment. 3,000 words

Presentation

50%

50%

Feedback methodsWritten feedback on your literature review will be provided by your supervisor and the module leader. Verbal feedback will be provided during and after the presentation.

Feedback from studentsIn addition to the course unit evaluation questionnaire, students are encouraged to give feedback through emails and conversations at any time, and using the online questionnaire near the end of the semester



APPENDIX

Overview of different types of systematic and critical literature reviews

�Qualitative�/�Traditional� and �Critical� Approaches to Literature ReviewsDenyer D. & Tranfield D. (2009), Producing a literature review, in Buchanan and Bryman (2009), SAGE

Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (Chapter 39), SAGE Publications Ltd, London, EnglandKnopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39(1), 127-132.

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human resource development review, 4(3), 356-367.

Saunders, M. N., & Rojon, C. (2011). On the attributes of a critical literature review. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(2), 156-162.

Bibliometric analysis Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research

agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750-772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312 Ruggeri, G., Orsi, L., & Corsi, S. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature on Fairtrade labelling.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(2), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12492

Framework and theory development reviewsPaul, J., & Mas, E. (2019). Toward a 7-P framework for international marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing

(in press). https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1569111 Paul, J. (2019). Marketing in emerging markets: A review, theoretical synthesis and extension. International

Journal of Emerging Markets. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2017-0130 Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6

Framework-based review Khamitov, M., Grégoire, Y., & Suri, A. (2020). A systematic review of brand transgression, service failure

recovery and product-harm crisis: integration and guiding insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00679-1

Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2018). A review of research on outward foreign direct investment from emerging countries, including China: What do we know, how do we know and where should we be heading? Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2017.1357316

Hybrid-Narrative reviews Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L. P., Sahasranamam, S., & Glinka, B. (2020). Immigrant entrepreneurship:

A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.013



Meta-analysis Khamitov, M., Wang, X., & Thomson, M. (2019). How well do consumer-brand relationships drive customer

brand loyalty? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand relationship elasticities. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 435-459. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz006

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0503-8

Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2019). Health motive and the purchase of organic food: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 44(2), 161-172 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12556

Morphological analysis Sunder M., V., Ganesh, L. S., & Marathe, R. R. (2018). A morphological analysis of research literature on Lean

Six Sigma for services. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 149-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2016-0273

Sunder M., V., Ganesh L.S. and Marathe, R. (2019). Dynamic capabilities: A morphological analysis framework and agenda for future research, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 25-63. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-03-2018-0060

Theme-based reviews Hao, A. W., Paul, J., Trott, S., Guo, C., & Wu, H. H. (2019). Two decades of research on nation branding: A

review and future research agenda. International Marketing Review (in press). https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2019-0028

Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 32-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12112

Kahiya, E. T. (2018). Five decades of research on export barriers: Review and future directions. International Business Review, 27(6), 1172-1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.04.008

Lim, W. M. (2016). Understanding the selfie phenomenon: current insights and future research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10), 1773-1788. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0484

Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.01.003

Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004

Rosado-Serrano, A., Paul, J. & Dikova, D (2018). International franchising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 85, 238-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.049

Theory-based reviews Gilal, F. G., Zhang, J., Paul, J., & Gilal, N. G. (2019). The role of self-determination theory in marketing science:

An integrative review and agenda for research. European Management Journal, 37(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.10.004

Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Parry, S. (2016). Addressing the cross-country applicability of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB): A structured review of multi-country TPB studies. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(1), 72-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1536



Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methodology (TCCM)-based reviews Canabal, A., & White III, G. O. (2008). Entry mode research: Past and future. International Business Review,

17(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.01.003 Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global / international new venture

models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830-858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280

Paul, J., & Singh, G. (2017). The 45 years of foreign direct investment research: Approaches, advances and analytical areas. The World Economy, 40(11), 2512-2527. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12502




Unit code: BMAN 80941Title: Qualitative Research Methods in PracticeCredit value: 15 creditSemester: Semester 1Course Coordinator contact details:

Prof Anne McBride, [email protected] office hours to be confirmed


n/a


None

Course unit overviewThe course will introduce PGRs to qualitative research and some of the practicalities of collecting and analysing qualitative data. The content of the course will give students insights into the experience of doing qualitative research and will equip them to make more informed choices about whether and which qualitative methods are appropriate for their PhD research.AimsThe aim of this course is to provide participants with a solid grounding in qualitative methods and analysis that can be developed in their PhD research and future careers. Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful PGRs will be able to:

reflect upon theoretical and practical issues that underpin the choice to undertake qualitative research

evaluate if a qualitative approach is useful to address their PhD research questions and select appropriate qualitative methods

identify the merits and weaknesses of different sampling methods in qualitative research plan and prepare for the practicalities of conducting qualitative methods differentiate between some of the main approaches to qualitative data analysis recognise the methodological and ethical dilemmas in qualitative research and formulate

strategies to address these.

Syllabus contentThe course will begin with an introduction to qualitative research. A range of qualitative methods will be discussed in detail: Qualitative research interviews; Observation and visual methods; Use of diaries; social media and documents. The course will also introduce methods to analyse qualitative data. An assignment workshop and guidance will be provided.


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolMethods of deliveryLectures Pre-recorded asynchronous lectures for each topic,

podcasts and identification of guided reading materials

Seminar 1hr 50 minutes per week, including break and designated Q&A session.

Independent Study This will include pre-reading of materials; watching lecture videos; preparation for seminars; use of Discussion Board; writing reflective journal; completion of assessment.

Total Study Hours 150hrs in total during PhD � this is assumed to be inclusive of writing up of qualitative research methods for research proposal; end of year review(s); methodology chapter in PhD.

Reading ListPre Reading: Your research proposal � what questions do you want to answer in this course that will support the development of your research plan and the execution of your doctorate?

Core Texts:Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A.L., Grandy, G. (2019) (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: Methods and Challenges, London: Sage. (online)

Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012). Qualitative Organisational Research, London: Sage. (online)

Supplementary Texts: Flick, U. (2013) (ed) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage. (online).

Saunders, M., Thornhill, A. and Lewis, P. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students 8th edition. Harlow: Pearson. (earlier editions online)

Plus guided reading for each topic of the course, available through Link2Lists Reading List.

Assessment

Mode of Assessment Length required

Weighting within unit

The course is assessed by one 2,500 word assignment.

The assignment will require students to present a justification for using up to two of the qualitative methods in their own PhD research and an assessment of any limitations or ethical questions they might raise. This will require a discussion of the research question(s)/ area of interest; your methodological approach; identification of research participants and recruitment; and proposed method of analysis.

It is intended that this work will contribute to work reviewed in the

2,500 words exclusive of reading list

and appendices

100%


Alliance Manchester Business Schoolmid-year and end-of-year review. It may also form the basis of the research design; ethics application, and future thesis chapter on methodology. It may also be a chance to try something out on paper - which may lead to a different approach being taken altogether.

Detailed guidance will be given on what this involves and its intended contribution to the PhD process.

All coursework submission will be through Blackboard

Assignment to be submitted on Wednesday December 15, 2021 at noon.

Resits: Resits are allowed if the exam board considers it appropriate to offer a resit assessment.Feedback methodsFeedback for all assessed coursework and formative assessment must be returned within 15 working days of the submission deadline. A working day is defined as Monday to Friday, not including bank holidays and excluding student vacation periods and University examination periods.Students are encouraged to engage with the course leader about the content and execution of the course. Students are also invited to fill out the course evaluation questionnaire at the end of the course that is accessible on Blackboard.



Page 1 of 6

PGR: Course Unit Outline 2021/2022

Unit code BMAN 80121

Title Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods

Credit rating 15

Semester 1

Course coordinator contact details

Dr. Masakatsu (Bob) OnoRoom 7.012 AMBSEmail: [email protected] hours: TBD

Other staff involved contact details

Dr. Wing LamEmail: [email protected] hours: TBD

Pre-requisites n/a

Co-requisites n/a

Restrictions This course is limited to AMBS Ph.D. students

Maximum number of students

Special notes n/a

Aims

This unit aims to:

Introduce students to quantitative research methods Provide an overall framework for the conduct of quantitative analyses Introduce students to basic statistical methods and hypothesis testing


On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

understand different types of variables and their implications for analyses understand the concepts and techniques of descriptive statistics understand the concepts and use the basic theory of probability conduct hypothesis testing analyse, interpret and extrapolate from data



Page 2 of 6

conduct correlation, analysis of variance, and multiple regression analysis (with a single outcome variable)

Contents

The contents of this unit include:

The importance of statistics in organisational research Probability theory and central limit theorem (CLT) Sampling Descriptive statistics Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) Confidence intervals Introduction to effect size and power t-tests and correlation Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA) Introduction to multiple regression analyses

Employability

Statistical skills are useful for problem-solving in many different organizational contexts. Ability in quantitative data analysis ensures that business problems can be analyzed and understood more in-depth. Through practice-based teaching and assessment that requires the application of statistics, students will learn foundational skills relevant to analyzing and modelling organizationally relevant phenomena. While this course does not provide you with the level of training required to describe yourself as a quantitative specialist, it certainly provides an in-depth introduction to basic quantitative methods. There are many jobs which you can apply for, which are not formally jobs in quantitative methods, but where such will provide you with a considerable advantage in the labour market.

Methods of Delivery

Lectures 2 hours (asynchronous) per week for 6 weeks (12 hours)

Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours 1 hour (synchronous or in-person) per week for 6 weeks (6 hours); In these contact hours, there will be substantial component of computing, so the students needs to be at home with a SPSS-equipped computer or in a computing lab on campus.

Private Study 72 hours




Page 3 of 6

Attendance

Attendance at all classes is compulsory and will be monitored.

Syllabus and Teaching Schedule

The relevant teaching materials for the sessions will be available on BlackBoard pages. We will also have synchronous interactive sessions for learning statistical software for each analytical technique (Tuesdays from 11:00 to 12:00).

Week Date Topic Tutor7 November 9th Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods,

Measurements & SamplingMO

8 November 16th Descriptive Statistics, Probability Theory & SPSS Overview

MO

9 November 23rd Null Hypothesis Significant Testing & Simple Tests (t-test, correlation)

MO

10 November 30th Analysis of Variance & Covariance WL11 December 7th Introduction to Regression WL12 December 14th Revision Lecture WL

Note. Week counts are basd on the academic calendar.

Reading List

The following reading list is designed to offer you additional information on each topic area. It is not compulsory to read all of the material on this list, but it is suggested that you read a minimum of one general textbook chapter, and one general review paper for each topic.

Core Text:

Coolidge, F. (2012). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction, 3/E, SAGE Publications, Inc. Paperback ISBN: 9781412991711.

Supplementary Text:

On SPSSField, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS for Windows, Sage Publications.

Multivariate StatisticsTabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics, 6th Edition. Pearson.

The book contains the chapters relevant to this course unit: multiple regression analyses and analyses of covariance.



Page 4 of 6

Mediation & Moderation Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

APA REPORT STYLEAmerican Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

This is the definitive bible of how to write articles for all leading psychology journals. Although this manual is intended for psychologists, it is nevertheless the most comprehensive guide to writing journal articles for social science journals. Please note that individual journals often have their own house style, which must be followed.

Assessment

Assessment activity Length required Weighting within unit

Coursework:Report based on analysis of provided data set using relevant quantitative techniques covered during the course unit. Full details of the coursework will be provided during the first lecture. The overall pass mark for the module is 60%.

Submittion Date: Tuesday 18th January by 3:00 pm

Max 2,000 Words 100%

Resits: The resit assessment consists of an exam to be completed during the resit examination period.

2 hours

Marking Process

AMBS follows a fair, rigorous and transparent marking process for all summative assessments. The School�s grading scheme for PGT courses is presented below.

Class Descriptor (which reflects the highest possible mark attainable) Possible Mark

Distinction 100Distinction 95Distinction

Your work is exceptional and of sufficient quality to be awarded an upper-range distinction mark. Your work is authoritative and amply demonstrates very advanced knowledge and a very advanced ability to integrate the full range of principles, theories, evidence and techniques. The clarity and originality of thought and the way that it is expressed is very impressive for this level of work.

92


Your work is outstanding and of sufficient quality to be awarded a mid-range distinction mark. Your response to the question is insightful. You demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of this 82



Page 5 of 6

topic. To improve future marks you should attempt to refine your analysis and arguments even further.


Your work is excellent and of sufficient quality to be awarded a lower-range distinction mark. You demonstrate a detailed level of understanding of this topic. To improve future marks you should attempt to identify any weaker parts of your argument and/or its presentation, ensure you have addressed opposing viewpoints or evidence decisively, and consider extending the range and use of supporting resources even further.

72

Merit 68Merit 65Merit

Your work is very good and of sufficient quality to be awarded a merit mark. Your work is sound and well-considered. To improve future marks you could integrate a wider range of sources and/or deepen your analysis. You may also need to develop weaker parts of your argument and/or its presentation, ensuring that you have identified and addressed key opposing viewpoints or evidence.

62

Pass 58Pass 55Pass

Your work is good and of sufficient quality to be awarded a pass mark. Your work is competent and coherent. To improve future marks you could integrate a wider range of sources and should increase your level of critical appraisal and seek to demonstrate a more integrated understanding of the subject and possible opposing viewpoints in your analysis. You could also improve the presentation and structure of your work.

52

Compensatable Fail

48

Compensatable Fail

45

Compensatable Fail

Your work demonstrates insufficient knowledge and skills in the specific topic area and does not merit a pass mark. It shows a basic level of knowledge and understanding. To achieve a higher mark you need to make sure that all your points are coherent and fully supported with data or evidence from the literature. You also need to achieve greater analytical depth and take fuller account of opposing viewpoints or evidence in order to provide more substantial, comprehensive and nuanced support for your argument.

42

Fail 38Fail 35Fail

Your work demonstrates insufficient knowledge and skills in the specific topic area and does not merit a pass mark. Your work demonstrates some awareness of the topic, although it is a frequently incoherent, or partial, response. To improve future marks you should improve your awareness of the appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques and engage more critically with them. You should present and structure your arguments better and make sure that they are substantiated. You should seek to undertake, or demonstrate that you have undertaken, independent work.

32

Fail 28Fail

Your work is inadequate and does not merit a pass mark. It demonstrates a confused or deficient awareness of the subject matter. To improve future marks you should improve your awareness of the appropriate principles, theories, evidence and

25



Page 6 of 6

techniques and engage critically with them. You should present and structure your arguments and make sure that they are substantiated. You should seek to undertake, or demonstrate that you have undertaken, independent work.

Fail Your work is severely inadequate and does not merit a pass mark. Your work demonstrates a very deficient understanding of the topic. To improve future marks you should improve your awareness of the appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques and engage critically with them. You should present and structure your arguments and make sure that they are substantiated. You should seek to undertake, or demonstrate that you have undertaken, independent work.

15

Fail Your work is profoundly inadequate and does not merit a pass mark. Your representation or understanding of thinking in the discipline is highly deficient. To improve future marks you should seek to understand thinking in the discipline and engage critically with it. You should present and structure your arguments and make sure that they are substantiated. You should seek to undertake, or demonstrate that you have undertaken, independent work.

5

Fail 0

Feedback

Informal, formative feedback to students will be provided throughout the course by means of analytical demonstrations and general question and answer exercises during the lectures. If you wish to discuss progress, course content or any other relevant issues, contact the lecturers in person, by email or by telephone.


Students are encouraged to give constructive feedback throughout the course directly to the course coordinator, Dr. Ono, or via the class student representatives to the Programme Committee. The course will be evaluated by means of an online feedback questionnaire completed by students on completion of the course.




Unit code: BMAN 80032Title: Epistemology � the quest for causalities (and creating knowledge)Credit value: 5Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Laszlo Czaban,[email protected] by arrangement, but highly flexible

Other staff involved contact details:Pre-requisitesCo-requisitesDependent course unitsRestrictions

Research Process 1

Course unit overviewThis is a restructured version of the module that has been very successful for several years. The purpose of the restructuring is to accommodate the academic development of doctoral students better.

The goal of the module is to enhance the participants� awareness of the epistemological problems in research in social science, in particular causalities, modelling, regression to the infinite, systemic analysis, etc.. The consequences of these to methodology and fallacies are thoroughly integrated. This is done through highly interactive sessions, centred around several papers in which epistemological issues are particularly important.

Building on the epistemology section of RP1, participants will be provided with the key frameworks related to the epistemological issues concerned, and these will be connected to concrete research problems that the students may encounter.

Aims

While participants will gain an understanding of the philosophy of social science, the key learning outcome is the ability of the participant to apply this understanding to his or her own research, as well as the ability to engage with other people�s academic work.

The module covers all the key issues in epistemology, the way in which epistemology influences research, conclusions and the formulation of theoretical frameworks. While all these aspects are covered in the course, in the available format it would be impossible to address them to the sufficient depth, thus a combination of highlighting issues, experiential learning and discussions are used.The course discusses the key approaches to knowledge (rationalism, positivism, Marxism, critical realism, interpretivist approaches), their differences and similarities. Special attention is paid to the influence of personal (and social) values and beliefs to the formation of knowledge.This is followed by discussions about the epistemological basis of the key tools of research such as categories, relationships, causalities, and so on. This then raises the question of the existence of theoretical laws in social science.



Alliance Manchester Business SchoolThe course then covers the relationship between such assumed laws (or causalities) and the phenomenon, and the description of this (in particular the relationship between the narratives and the evidence).Systemic views of the phenomena, multidisciplinary approaches are commonly applied, but the epistemological implications are often skipped or even ignored. The course covers these implications to enable the participants to recognise the need of managing these through methodology and/or construction of a framework, thus the course also covers the relationship between methodology and epistemology.Finally, the course discusses the epistemology of the presentation of the research or analysis � the need of simplification and the danger of it in creating knowledge. Throughout the course these issues will be discussed at the level of the individual, at the level of the institutional influences and at the level of social influences.In the process of the sessions, other approaches in philosophy (ontology, ethics, social construction) will also be extensively referred to.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)Students will be able to

Understand the key epistemological problems and thoughts in social scienceUnderstand the effects of epistemology on the methodology that they would use in their own

research.Apply the necessary corrective measures when epistemological issues influence the research

outcomes (findings)

Being able to interact with thoughts coming from different epistemological stances.

The group work element, in addition to creating a dynamics and a learning environment for philosophical questions, would also enable students to

Structure their argument along the lines normally followed in keynote speeches and conference presentations

Encourage students to be able to respond to questions and objections on the fly

Provide skills of defending arguments while being inclusive of appropriate objections

Syllabus contentWorkshop 1Session 1: Laws in social science, do laws exist?

Discussion reading: F. A. Hayek (1967): The Theory of Complex Phenomena, pp 22-42 in Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (uploaded to Blackboard)

Session 2: Constructed history, the question of path dependency and the analysis of the phenomenonDiscussion reading: Wallerstein, I: Does India exist? (uploaded to Blackboard)

Session 3: Systemic views: trying to deal with the infinite in all directions: setting the boundaries of the research topic

Discussion reading: Rosenkopf and Tushman: The Coevolution of Technology and Organization (uploaded to Blackboard)

Workshop 2Session 1: Society and individuals � the level of analysis (Part I)

Discussion reading: Hodgson, G. (2007). Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolEconomic Methodology, 14: 211-226

Session 2: Functional analysis in social science � the level of analysis (Part II)Discussion reading: Dore, R. F. (1961): Function and cause, American Sociological Review, Vol 16, pp. 843-583

Session 3: Reductionism versus simplification � Analysis versus presentationDiscussion reading: Optimisation and Evolution (uploaded to Blackboard)

Workshop 3:Reflections: Implications of epistemology to your own research

Session structure:In each session after a lecture of about 45-60 minutes, there will be group presentations (these can be formal (slides) or informal � ideally the style of a conference presentation) on the discussion reading (listed above). Each group present the same paper by answering the following questions:

What is the problem that the paper tackles?How the logic is built to address the problem?What are the epistemological implications of the logic?What is the contribution to knowledge (if you were the reviewer, what would be your decision about the paper)?What implications it may have to (any of the) group members� research?

Interruptions of the presentations are encouraged, providing that the interruption is a question and the intention is clarification and helping the presenting group.

The discussion is followed by a summary by the tutor.

Methods of deliveryLecturesSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours Two 6-hour workshops and one 3-hour workshop

Independent Study 135Total Study Hours 150

Reading ListPre Reading: Listed in the content section

Selective reading:

The readings below contain the original articles and book chapters of today�s epistemological debates (as participants come from very different backgrounds, and with very different research interest, it would be unreasonable to provide discipline specific readings or to provide readings relevant to very specific methodological and epistemological issues). Such specific readings on current debates will be provided on the basis of requests and as a result of the discussions developing during the sessions. Also, some of the approaches changed their name over the time.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago PressKuhn, Thomas (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press. pp. 320�39Davidson, Donald, (1974): Psychology as Philosophy in pp. 43-52 Brown, S. C. (ed) Philosophy of


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolPsychology, London Macmillan PressCohen, G. A. (1978): Functional Explanation in Marxism pp 278-296 in Cohen, G. A. Karl Marx�s Theory of History. A Defence, Princeton: Princeton University PressMahner, M. and Bunge, M. (2001): Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 75-94Kincaid, H. (1986): Reduction, Explanation and Individualism, Philosophy of Science Vol 53 pp 492-513Elster, j. (1983): Functional explanation, pp 55-68 and pp 241-243 in Elster, J. Explaining Technical Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressKincaid, H. (1990): Defending Laws in the Social Sciences, Philosophy of Social Sciences Vol 20 pp, 56-83McIntyre, L (1993): �Complexity� and Social Scientific Laws, Sythese Vol 97Friedman (1966) The Methodology of Positive Economics, In Essays In Positive Economics Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 3-16, 30-43Davidson (1963) Action, Reasons and Causes. Journal of Philosophy 60 (23):685-700Luke (1968): Methodological Individualism reconsidered, British Journal of Sociology 19, pp. 119�29Watkins (1957): Historical explanation in the Social Sciences The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol 8 (30) pp. 104-117Whitley (2000) The intellectual and social organisation of science, Oxford: OUPMargaret Archer (2012): The Reflexive Imperative, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeLeitch et al (2009): The Philosophy and Practice of Interpretivist Research in Entrepreneurship: Quality, Validation, and Trust, Organisational Research 13(1)Assessment


Assessment is for those requiring unit credits (please make this clear to the tutor at the start of the elective)

Assessment is built around 6 group presentations. Each group produces a 15-minute presentation on the discussion paper in the sessions (as specified in the content section) following the specified questions.

Both the content of the presentation and the involvement in discussions on the presentations of the other groups are parts of the assessment.

The purpose of the presentations is engagement rather than adjustment to perceived expectations.

As there is no requirement of using any presentation tool, there is no requirement of submitting any slides or notes.

The marking follows the reduced step marking scheme, thus primarily it evaluates the quality of the presentation and the engagement with the questions, and debates. There is an influence of relative performance as all the groups present all the discussion

15-20 minutes of each presentation

Each presentation represents 1/6th of the

mark.


Alliance Manchester Business Schoolpapers and as all students are encouraged to engage with the presentations of other groups.

The students will receive a detailed explanation of the mark of each of their presentations. The final mark is an average of these marks.

Students who are dissatisfied with their mark are given the opportunity of submitting a 2,000-word assignment on evaluating a published paper structured along the following questions:

What is the problem that the paper tackles?

How the logic is built to address the problem?

What are the epistemological implications of the logic?

What is the contribution to knowledge (if you were the reviewer, what would be your decision about the paper)?

Resits:

a 2,000-word assignment on evaluating a published paper structured along the following questions:

What is the problem that the paper tackles?

How the logic is built to address the problem?

What are the epistemological implications of the logic?

What is the contribution to knowledge (if you were the reviewer, what would be your decision about the paper)?Feedback methods

An initial formative feedback is provided right after the presentations (oral).

A formal formative feedback is provided after the last session in writing.

Depending on the development of the discussion during the session, there will be a summary provided of the key points of the discussion, the current understanding in the current literature, and the relevance to the presentations. These will be uploaded to BB within three days after the session at a length of about 1000-1500 words.

Apart from the course unit survey, the last session (half a day workshop) is dedicated to the students� reflections on the implications of the content of the course to their own research project. This inevitably (based on the experience of the last four years) includes discussion about the design and content of the course. These are accounted for when modifying, developing the course.

Students can ask for face-to-face meeting to discuss satisfaction with the course, special needs,


Alliance Manchester Business Schoolrelevance to their own project, and can request inclusion of some very specific topics (it has been utilised by some students every year).




Unit code: BMAN80022Title: Case Study Research: Method and MethodologyCredit value: 5Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Prof Robert W Scapens: [email protected]

Other staff involved contact details:Pre-requisitesCo-requisitesDependent course unitsRestrictions

None

Course unit overviewThe course will explore the use of case studies from diverse methodological positions – reflecting different ontological and epistemological assumptions. Case study methods and methodology will be discussed in lectures and some existing case study research papers will be discussed and critiqued by participant groups AimsCase studies are increasingly being used in many areas of business and management research, and it is widely recognised that case research can be powerful in developing, modifying and extending theory in both exploratory and explanatory research designs. However, there can be misunderstanding of the methodological underpinnings of research using case studies. Different methodological perspectives can use case studies in quite different ways. For example, the role of case studies in positive research is quite different to their use by interpretive researchers.

This course focuses on the methodological underpinnings of case study research and the roles of case studies in different methodological traditions within the diverse fields of business and management. Examples will be provided of both positive and interpretive case studies. Categorisations of different methodological bases of case studies will be discussed, and the use of theory in case study research will be explored. In addition, the course will cover the characteristics of good case research design and ways of constructing ‘convincing’ case studies.Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

o Understand how case study research methods are used within different methodologies.o Understand the different uses of case studies in different areas of business and management

research.o Design and analyse case studies.o Critique existing case study research papers.

Syllabus content


Alliance Manchester Business Schoolo The diverse uses of case studies in different research methodologieso What is meant by ‘case study’ and ‘case study research’ and when it is an appropriate choice of

research design – what are the implications of choosing a case study design? o Examining different uses of case studies in business and management research, and critiquing

case study research designs. o Issues of validity, reliability and generalization. o Practical issues of case study research for doctoral projects. o Weaknesses in case study design. o Critiquing existing case research papers.

Methods of deliveryLectures/Seminars 6 contact hours - 2 sessions of 3 hours each.Independent Study 94Total Study Hours 100Reading ListPre Reading:The following two papers, which will be discussed during the lectures, must be read before the course:

Merchant, K.A., and Riccaboni, A., Performance-based Management Incentives in the Fiat Group: A Field, Management Accounting Research, Vol.1 No.4, December 1990, pp.281-303.

Scapens, R.W. and Roberts, J. Accounting and Control: A Case Study of Resistance to Accounting and Change, Management Accounting Research, Vol.4 No.1, March 1993, pp.1-32.

Other pre-reading will be advised about one month before the course.The following readings provide additional background – other readings will be provided during the course:

Scapens, R. W., (2004), "Doing Case Study Research", in Humphrey, C. & B Lee (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier, pp. 257-279. See also other chapters in this book.

Yin, R.K., (2018) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sixth (or earlier) Edition, London: Sage

Core Text: TBA Supplementary Text: TBA A full reading list will be distributed at the start of the courseAssessment



Select any published research paper in your area that uses case study research methods and critically evaluate the way in which the case study is used in the paper.

1500 word 100%

Resits: resubmission of assignment.

Feedback methods


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolFeedback on the optional assessment will be provided in the form of comments on the critique of the selected paper.

Feedback from studentsThere will be a course unit survey on BlackBoard, however participants are encouraged to provide feedback directly to Prof Scapens.



Page 1 of 4


Unit code: BMAN 80062

Title: Comparative Case analysis

Credit rating: 5

Semester: 2

Course Coordinator

contact details:

Dr Laszlo Czaban

AMBS, Room 6.004, [email protected]

Please arrange a meeting if you need one


None

Co-requisites: None

Restrictions: None. This course can also be taken for audit purposes only.

Maximum number of students

None

Special Notes: Attendance for students unregistered to the course is possible after discussing it with the course co-ordinator.

Aims & Objectives (Learning outcomes)

Students will be able to:

Understand the use of truth tables in CCA

Understand the use of fuzzy sets in CCA

Understand the evolution of CCA

Position the methodology the context of qualitative and quantitative methodologies

Understand the limitations (theoretical, methodological and epistemological) of this methodology

Apply the concepts and methodologies for their own research even if CCA is not directly applied.




Page 2 of 4

Content

The first part of the workshop opens with the problem of inferential reasoning and the consequences of this problem to methodology (both qualitative and quantitative methodologies). It discusses the attempts to overcome the problem in different approaches, and how CCA can be positioned in this context.

Following from this it, the workshop will discuss the technical elements of the methodology (truth tables and Boolean statistics) and how it is related to create a qualitative version of statistical analysis for phenomena where there are many inter-related variables, and a limited number of outcomes, and a limited number of cases.

It covers the introduction of the fuzzy sets in CCA as a solution to the problems with binominal approaches, and also highlights the limitations of this approach.

The final part utilises a published article that will be used for a class discussion on the implications of utilising the methodology for a complex phenomenon, and draw general conclusions from this.

Employability

The ability of understanding and utilising truth tables, and comparative case analysis should help the students in:

Engaging with various theoretical frameworks and studies

Combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies while being aware of the epistemological issues

Having a heightened awareness of different approaches to fields related or unrelated to the student�s direct research interest.

Methods of delivery

Lectures One 5-hour workshop

Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours

Private Study

Directed Reading

Total Study Hours

Attendance

Attendance is not monitored, auditing students are welcome.

Syllabus and Teaching Schedule

The schedule is detailed in the Content section.



Page 3 of 4

Reading List

Ragin, C. (1987): The Comparative Method: Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley: UoC Press

Ragin, C. (2000): Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago: CU Press

Kogut, B. (2010): Qualitative comparative analysis of social science data pp. 139-182 in Morgan et al (eds): The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis, OUP

Further reading will be provided during the session (depending on the specialisation and interests of the participants). There will also be a discussion article that utilises CCA and the students are expected to read it before the workshop.

Assessment


If any student requires credit for the workshop, he or she would have to write a 1,500 assignment on evaluating a published article that uses CCA. The assignment should be structured by the following questions:

1) What is the problem that the article attempts to solve?2) What is the logic that the arguments follow?3) How it is justified by the methodology?4) Does the methodology raise questions that are not addressed in the article?5) If you were the editor, would you publish the article (does it contribute to knowledge)?

The assignment is due on the 10th June 2021.

Marking Process

The marking of any assignment would follow the reduced step marking process with sufficient formative feedback provided.

Feedback

Feedback to the assignment would be provided within 15 working days.

Prior to submission students may set up a meeting with the course co-ordinator to discuss the progression in the analysis.

Date coursework feedback will be returned

10th of June, 2022




Page 4 of 4

Apart from the survey, students are given opportunities to discuss the theoretical or practical issues emerging from the workshop and/or the organisation of the workshop.




Unit code: BMAN80432Title: Reviewing and Evaluating ManuscriptsCredit value: 5Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Dr. Dimitrija Kalanoski, [email protected] hours (by arrangement via email)


Dr N. Nuruzzaman [email protected] hours (by arrangement via email)


Elective

Course unit overview

The course follows a workshop format where students are firstly introduced to a range of issues regarding manuscript reviewing and evaluations, and then are encouraged to apply this on a set of real examples. For these we will use examples of successful/unsuccessful manuscripts and reviews from top-tier journals.

Aims

To introduce students to the topics of peer-reviewing, manuscript evaluation, scholarly feedback, and mentoring.

To sharpen skills of critical reading and analysis of scholarly writings, in relation to their own doctoral work, that of peers and academic articles more generally.

To develop within students an appreciation of the merits of (peer-review) feedback and how to constructively utilise this as an aid to make a scholarly contribution.


On completion of this unit successful students will be able to: Demonstrate an awareness and an understanding of the elements involving scholarly manuscript

reviews and manuscript evaluation for management researchers. Assess and improve their own work and that of peers through the lens of generic evaluation

criteria. Identify a �contribution� and how to provide constructive feedback and input for quality

improvements thereof.

Syllabus content

This unit will select aspects of the art and science of reviewing, an essential albeit sometimes possibly flawed element in the production of knowledge. Topics include:

Reviewing as a vital professional service, when to review and when not to review? Fundamentals and practice of reviewing, fairness and other key criteria.




Reviewing (your own/someone�s) PhD, for conferences, for academic journals. Providing constructive and workable feedback.

Methods of deliveryLectures 9 (3 sessions, approx. 3 hours each)Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours

Independent Study 41Total Study Hours 50

Reading List

Pre Reading: Linton (2010), Lepak (2009).

Further reading (selection):

Books: Baruch, Sullivan, and Schepmyer (2006); Clark, Wright, and Ketchen (2017); Campion (1993); Carpenter (2009); Clark, Floyd, and Wright (2006); Kilduff (2007).

Assessment



Review of a journal article

The reviewing assignment of a journal article is an individual task.

One way, which may be used in the marking process for this course, and thus may help you in developing your work, is outlined in Patriotta (2017).

4 to 10 pages each, depending on the

nature of the manuscript.

100%

This is an elective course, the assignment is an integral part of the learning objectives of this course, rather than an assessment mechanism that results in credits. There is no point in attending this course by simply �sitting in�. If you wish to sharpen your skills in critically reviewing your own work, or the work of peers, the assignments are a crucially important step towards this goal. You will be provided with numerical feedback scores on the tasks.

The reviewing assignment of a journal article and a draft PhD manuscript from a peer are an individual task.


Resits: Reviewing assignment of a journal article.

Assessment deadline: TBC (approx. 4 weeks after last course session).

Feedback methods

1.1 Feedback to studentsThere will be feedback on any oral and written assignment (formative or summative) completed by students.

1.2 Feedback from studentsStudents are offered the opportunity to provide written feedback and oral feedback on the course unit by contacting staff involved during office hours or via email.

1.3 Course unit surveyAt the end of the course unit each student will be asked to complete a short questionnaire that will be used to gather feedback on teaching quality and general organization of the course.

Date coursework feedback will be returned � 1 May 2022



Unit code: BMAN80502Title: Structural Equation ModellingCredit value: 5Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:

Prof. Paul Irwing, Room 7.005, Tel. 0161-8323872/63419, Email: [email protected]


N/A

Pre-requisites

Dependent course units

Students on this course must also have completed the prior courses on factor analysis and multiple regression or equivalent. To ensure that previous courses have covered equivalent material this should be discussed with the course tutor

Introduction to Hierarchical Linear Modelling with HLM Course unit overviewConfirmatory factor and structural models arguably form the strongest currently available basis for all advanced multivariate analyses, including for example multi-level models and longitudinal data analysis. This course will provide a basic introduction to both types of model.AimsMost quantitative studies in business involve the measurement of multiple latent variables at either one or multiple points in time. Currently, the most widely accepted analyses of such data depend on structural equation models of various types, the most basic of which are confirmatory factor models and path models. This course will introduce students to such models and provide them with the practical skills to analyse such models in Mplus.Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

Understand the basic principles of structural equation modelling Carry out a confirmatory factor analysis Test simple path models Acquire a basic mastery of SEM as implemented in Mplus Apply these basic principles to publishable data sets Know how to report SEM analyses in journal style

Syllabus content Sample and model implied covariance matrices Classical test theory Confirmatory factor analysis and the concept of latent variables Path models Fit statistics and cut-off criteria Strategies for testing and fitting models. Estimators. Identification. Mplus code.


Alliance Manchester Business School Writing up SEM analyses in journal style

Methods of deliveryLectures 6 hours. The course will be delivered over two

consecutive daysSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours 6 hours



Reading ListPre Reading: Tokarev, A., Phillips, A.R., Hughes, D.J., & Irwing, P. (2017). Leader dark traits, workplace bullying, and employee depression: Exploring mediation and the role of the dark core. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 911-920. http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0000299

Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual review of psychology, 53, 605-634. 2

Core Texts:

Basic Introduction

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NJ: The Guiford Press. Chapters 1,3,4 and 9.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Supplementary Texts:

Underlying theory - Introductory

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. London: The Guilford Press.

Loehlin, J. (2004). Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path and Structural Equation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

SEM using Mplus

Kelloway, E. K. (2015). Using Mplus for Structural Equation Modeling. Sage: London.

Geiser, C. (2013). Data Analysis with Mplus. New York: Guilford Press.

Underlying theory � Advanced

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolSelected References

Analysis strategies

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice � A review and recommended 2-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). London: Sage.

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2003). Potential problems with �well fitting� models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 578-598.

Estimation

Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 4, 466-491.

Fit

Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424�453.

Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1�55.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McCardle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festshrift for Roberick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23-74.

Yuan, K.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115-148.

Parcelling

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.

Item level factor analysis

Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58-79.

Supplementary Text: to indicate any supplementary readings for the courseAssessment


This will comprise a write up of the class exercises in the form of a journal article.




CourseworkPGRs may take this elective as a stand-alone assessed 5 credit module providing they have completed the equivalent pre-requisites. In this case they will complete a 1500 word assignment based on SEM. If this elective is taken alongside EFA the combined assignment should be 2,500 words in length for 10 credits. If the three electives are taken together then the 15 credit assignment length will be 3000 words.

.

1,500, 2,500 or 3,000 words (see opposite)

100%

Feedback methodsPGRs are encouraged to express any constructive comments or to seek help and advice from the individual lecturers involved. At the end of the semester there will be the opportunity to give feedback on the course by means of a feedback questionnaire. In addition there will be a group presentation in which both PGRs and staff will provide constructive feedback. For the coursework, there is a standard template which specifies the exact criteria used to assess the coursework. At the end of the course an exemplary piece of coursework will be posted on Blackboard.




Unit code: BMAN80992Title: Multiple RegressionCredit value: 5Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:



N/A

Pre-requisites


Students on this course must also have completed the prior course on factor analysis or its equivalent. To ensure that previous courses have covered equivalent material this should be discussed with the course tutor

Structural Equation Modelling, Introduction to Hierarchical Linear Modelling with HLM

Course unit overviewMultiple regression arguably forms basis for all advanced multivariate analyses, including for example structural equation models, multi-level models and longitudinal data analysis. This course will provide a basic introduction simple and multiple regression, including hierarchical, stepwise, moderator and mediation models.AimsMost quantitative studies in business involve the simultaneous measurement of a large number of random variables, either at one or at multiple points in time. This course is intended to provide students with a grounding in the statistical techniques in order to validly analyze data sets of this type. The emphasis is on the development of the practical skills required to carry out such analyses using SPSS software. Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

Understand the basic principles of multiple regression Analyze a variety of different regression models Practically apply this knowledge to real problems as exemplified by publishable data sets Acquire a basic mastery of regression as implemented in SPSS Know how to write up these analyses in journal form

Syllabus content Basic principles of simple regression Assumptions of multiple regression Multiple R, R2, Beta coefficients, associated F- and t-tests The application of multiple regression to simple path models Testing of mediator models Testing of moderator models Applied regression analysis using SPSS Interpretation and examples of how to report regression results


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolMethods of deliveryLectures 6 hours. The course will be delivered over two





Core Texts:



SPSS

Field, Andy (2013) Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS for Windows, Sage Publications.

Advanced

Cohen, J. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioural sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mediation and Moderation

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional processs analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.

Assessment






CourseworkPGRs may take this elective as a stand-alone assessed 5 credit module providing they have completed the equivalent pre-requisites. In which case they will complete a 1500 word assignment based on multiple regression. If this elective is taken alongside EFA the combined assignment should be 2,500 words for 10 credits. If the three electives are taken together then PGRs should see the SEM outline for the 15 credit guidance.

1,500 words or

2,500 words

100%

100%




Doctoral Programme Course unit outline 2020/21

Unit code: BMAN88152Title: Exploratory Factor AnalysisCredit value: 5Semester: 2Course Coordinator contact details:



N/A

Pre-requisites


Students on this course must also have completed the prior course on introduction to quantitative methods or the equivalent.

Multiple Regression, Structural Equation Modelling, Introduction to Hierarchical Linear Modelling with HLM

Course unit overviewAny empirical study is no stronger than the measures it uses. The science of developing valid measures, often denoted psychometrics, is heavily dependent on factor analysis. This course will teach both the theory and application of factor analysis to real life data sets.AimsQuantitative studies in business are never better than the quality of measures used to gather data. Commonly, many such studies involve the use of scales composed of multiple components, very often in the form of questionnaire items. Exploratory factor analysis is a key technique used in the development of valid scales. This course is intended to provide students with a grounding in the statistical techniques used in c=scale development. The emphasis is on the development of the practical skills required to carry out such analyses using SPSS software. Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will be able to:

conduct factor analyses; understand the principles of estimation apply these analytic methods to publishable data sets know how to report quantitative analyses in journal style interpret arguments based on factor models think critically, analytically and synthetically about research data analyze, interpret and extrapolate from data Know how to write up these analyses in journal form

Syllabus content Exploratory factor analysis Estimation methods including principal components and maximum likelihood, Rotation: orthogonal and oblique methods, Determining the number of factors: Kaiser criterion, Scree test and parallel analysis

Methods of delivery


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolLectures 6 hours. The course will be delivered over two





Core Texts:



SPSS

Field, Andy (2013) Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS for Windows, Sage Publications.

Factor Analysis In Test Development

Irwing, P., & Hughes, D. J. (2017). Test development. In P. Irwing, T. Booth & D. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of PsychometricTesting A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development.:. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Although this chapter�s focus is not factor analysis per se, you will probably find this the most useful read of all to understand the course material as a whole.

Introduction

Mulaik, S. (2018). Fudamentals of common factor analysis. In P. Irwing, T. Booth & D. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of PsychometricTesting A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development.:. London: John Wiley & Sons.

General Review Articles

(*) Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. & Strahan, E.J. (1999). "Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research." Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.

Russell, D.W. (2002). "In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629-1646.



Osbourne, J.W. & Costello, A.B. (2005). "Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1-9.

Specific Factor Analysis Books

Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. Routledge: London.

(*) Comrey, A.L. & Lee, H.B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis. Laurence Erlbaum Associates

Specific Issues in EFA

Rotation

Jennrich, R. I. (2018). Rotation. In P. Irwing, T. Booth & D. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of PsychometricTesting A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development.:. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Number of Factors Problem

Timmerman, M. E., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ceulemans, E. (2018). The number of factors problem. In P. Irwing, T. Booth & D. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of PsychometricTesting A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development.:. London: John Wiley & Sons.

PCA vs Common Factor Model

(*) Bentler, P.M. & Kano, Y. (1990). �On the Equivalence of Factors and Components.� Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 67-74.

(*)Velicer, W.F. & Jackson, D.N. (1990). �Component Analysis versus Common Factor Analysis: Some Further Observations.� Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 97-114.

(*) Widaman, K.F. (1993). �Common Factor Analysis Versus Principal Components Analysis: Differential Bias in Representing Model Parameters?� Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.

Sample Size

(*) MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. (1999). �Sample Size in Factor Analysis.� Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.

Computing Factor Scores

(*) Grice, J.W. (2001). �Computing and Evaluating Factor Scores.� Psychological Methods, 6, 430.450.

Theoretical Application Article


Alliance Manchester Business SchoolKline, P. (1987). "Factor analysis and personality theory." European Journal of Personality, 1, 21-36.

Assessment




CourseworkPGRs may take this elective as a stand-alone assessed 5 credit module. In which case they will complete a 1500 word assignment based on EFA. If this elective is taken alongside multiple regression then please see that outline for guidance on the 10 credit assessment. If the three electives are taken together then PGRs should see the SEM outline for the 15 credit guidance.

1,500 words 100%





Unit code: BMAN80142Title: Navigating the publication processCredit value: 5 creditsSemester: Semester 2Course Coordinator contact details:

[email protected]


N/A


N/A

Course unit overviewThe goal of the course is to help create an understanding on how to navigate a paper from submission to publication in social science. The workshops will support PGRs in identifying and attending to common mistakes throughout the process. The course is designed around the particular needs of PGRs who have limited knowledge regarding academic publishing.

AimsGetting to know the fundamentals of publishing papers in a peer-review journal in social sciences.


Understand how to structure a paper and how to communicate with editors, area editors, and reviewers in order to maximize the chances of navigating through a publication process. This includes knowledge and some skills of

- Selecting the right journal- Knowledge regarding specifics of the review process- How to communicate with editors and reviewers- How a typical paper is structured and why

Syllabus contentGeneral information of a publication processWhat goes where and why in a paper targeting a journal in social sciencesDo’s and don’ts when communicating with editors/reviewersWriting reviewer comments

Methods of deliveryLectures 3 hours per week over 3 weeksSeminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours 9 hours




Reading ListPre Reading: Holt, K. (2019). Wendy Laura Belcher: Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success..

Core Text:Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 36(1), 12-32.

Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli. "Conducting field-based, discovery-oriented research: lessons from our market orientation research experience." AMS Review 7.1 (2017): 4-12.

Nahata, Milap C., and Eugene M. Sorkin. "Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments." (2019): 959-961.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.

Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.

Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zaltman, G. (2020). A theories-in-use approach to building marketing theory. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 32-51.

Assessment


1. Reflections on how select a journal in the participant’s on field. Submission deadline: Feb 27 (24 hours before the next session)

2. Outline and reflections on a skeleton of a paper (what goes where and why). Submission deadline: April 29

3. Review a review and be able to discuss on the session March 21

Submission will be via Blackboard/Turnitin.

500 words

1000 words

30%

70%

Feedback methodsIn addition to feedback being provided by peers and the course convenor within the workshop sessions, the assessment task is divided into two so that PGRs will receive feedback from part 1 prior to the submission of part 2, given the second task builds on the first.

PGRs will receive a link for a course unit evaluation questionnaire after the completion of the course. In addition PGRs are encouraged to provide feedback through emails and conversations at any time.

Provide details of how, and in what form, feedback will be provided on your course unit (both formative


and summative) and the timescale for doing this. Please note that you have already provided details of this within your course outline. As highlighted in the University policy on feedback, an opportunity for formative feedback must exist in all course units.


14thMarch, then 28th March, then 25th April?

The goal of the course is to help create an understanding on how to navigate a paper from submission to publication in social science. The plan is also to point towards common mistakes throughout the process. The course is designed to target fresh/new scholars that has limited knowledge in publishing.

Lecture 1 - The competitive landscape of publishing- The overall process of publishing

o Regular issue vs special issueso What is the “best journal” in your fieldo What to publisho The importance of selecting the right journal and how do you know that you haveo How do you get passed the first gate (getting sent out for review)o The importance of a letter to the editoro Suggesting reviewers

- Task; Describe the journal landscape in your field. o What are the best journals and what are their profile(s)o How do you come to the conclusion that these are the best journalso What does the complete map of journals look likeo What are other potential target journals for your area

Lecture 2- The review process- The review process from an editorial perspective - What is an editor looking for and why- The review process from an author’s perspective – what is the editor trying to tell you- The review process form the reviewer’s perspective- What happens in the first round of decision, the first R&R, second R&R, third R&R

Task, to the next session read a review and be prepared to discuss

Lecture 3- The importance and purpose of each component of a paper

o Abstracto Introductiono Literature review (the JAMS table approach)o Theory (what is it really?)o Method (qualitative and quantitative)o Analysis o Theoretical implicationso Managerial implications

Task; Do a skeleton of a paper on something you are working on alternatively want to work on. Describe briefly the content (related to your research) in each heading mentioned below (do insert an abstract of the research).

This should includeo Abstract


o Introductiono Literature review o Theory (o Method o Analysis o Theoretical implicationso Managerial implications

Science, Technology & Innovation Policy



Unit code: BMAN 80810Title: Advanced Topics in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Credit value: 15Semester: Semester 1 and Semester 2 (both)Course Coordinator contact details:

Kieron FlanaganAMBS 8.014, x5-0920; Email: [email protected] Hours: by appointment

Cornelia LawsonAMBS 8.022; x5-7253; Email: [email protected] Hours: by appointment


N/A


None


Introduces and explores advanced topics in science, technology and innovation policy

Aims

This module introduces and explores advanced topics in science, technology and innovation policy. The module is targeted to post-graduate students with research interests related to science, technology, and innovation policy.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will:

Enhance their understanding of key and emerging topics in science, technology and innovation policy

Become conversant with current and classical literature sources on these topics. Understand the conceptual underpinnings, and contrasting perspectives, that influence debates

on these topics. Realise the interlinked role of theories and systems in framing science, technology and innovation

policies.

The module will strengthen key skills in analysing scholarly and policy materials, critiquing research designs and literature, and formulating and presenting independent perspectives.

Syllabus content

The module engages researchers in science, technology and innovation policy; domains of science, technology and innovation policy are examined; with attention to the evolution of theory and literature and relationships with policy from an interdisciplinary perspective.




The seminars will each focus on a particular topic in science, technology, and innovation policy, with prior targeted reading, and with review and discussion. Key authors and experts will be invited to present at these seminars. Examples of topics to be discussed include: The aims of science policy; technology, sustainability, and inclusive development; assessing innovation policy impacts; the new revolution in production; and policies for emerging technologies. Individual readings will be assigned ahead of each course session, with the expectation that students will have read and be prepared to discuss these readings.

In addition to the seminars, individual tutorial meetings will be arranged with each registered student in each semester to discuss their own research, linkages with seminar topics and methods, readings and assignments.

The capstone discussion will review debates and learning. Students will present and discuss their own perspectives on self-identified topics (typically related to their research project) in science, technology, and innovation policy, with reference to key literature sources and consideration of the linkages between theory and policy.

In 2021-2022, teaching in the module will conform with current university and AMBS COVID-19 guidelines. In Semester 1 students will be able to study on campus or remotely. All course readings and other materials will be available online.

Methods of deliveryLectures --Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours 30 hours



Reading List

Pre Reading: Martin, BR. 2012. The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy 41.7:

1219-1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012 Kuhlmann, S., and Rip, A. 2019. Next generation science policy and Grand Challenges. In: Simon,

D., Kuhlmann, S., Stamm, J., and Canzler, W. (eds) Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00009

Edler, J., Gök, A., Cunningham, P., and Shapira, P. 2016. Making Sense of Innovation Policy. In: Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A, and Shapira, P. (eds). Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711856.00008

Core Text: Individual readings will be assigned ahead of each course session.

Supplementary Text: Multiple readings from prior seminars are available at this link

Assessment

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ofq6c2i52rz3dp7/AABDTYGmCUeFSq-VxLoHgB9ka?dl=0

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711856.00008

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00009

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012



Outline of science, technology, and innovation policy topic review – identify topic, with abstract, and three key literature contributions. (Due 21 January 2022, 10h00 UK

500 words Formative

Science, technology, and innovation policy topic review – on a selected topic, compare and critique three key references and link review to discussion of conceptual and policy implications. Submit through Blackboard/Turnitin. Review to be written as academic text. (Due 13 May 2022, 10h00 UK time).

2500-4000 words 80%

Individual presentation of topic at capstone meeting (16 May 2022).

20%

Resits: Will by assessed by satisfactory completion of coursework.Feedback methodsStudents will receive feedback through a series of methods, comprising:

• Written and/or verbal comments on non-assessed (formative) and assessed coursework.• Informal advice and discussion during course meetings and following presentations.• Responses to student emails and questions. • Individual feedback in meetings with instructors (e.g. in office hours or by appointment).• Specific course related feedback discussion in course sessions.

Feedback for all assessed coursework and formative assessment will be provided within 15 working days of the submission deadline. A working day is defined as Monday to Friday, not including bank holidays and excluding student vacation periods and University examination periods. For submission dates, see section on Assessment.

In addition to the course unit evaluation questionnaire, students are encouraged to give feedback through emails and conversations at any time, and using the online questionnaire near the end of the semester



Unit code: BMAN 80920Title: Research and Policy Seminar in Science, Technology and Innovation

PolicyCredit value: 15Semester: Semester 1 and Semester 2 (both)Course Coordinator contact details:

Kieron FlanaganAMBS 8.014, x5-0920; Email: [email protected] Hours: by appointment

Cornelia LawsonAMBS 8.022; x5-7253; Email: [email protected] Hours: by appointment


N/A


Pre-requisite: BMAN 80810 (or equivalent)


Further examination of research topics in science, technology and innovation policy

Aims

This module unit provides opportunities for post-graduate students to further engage with advanced research topics in science, technology, and innovation policy, present and discuss their research, receive feedback, and interact with research and policy leaders. The module is targeted to 2nd Year doctoral students in science, technology and innovation policy. It is also appropriate for other doctoral students with interests in this domain.

Objectives (Learning outcomes)On completion of this unit successful students will:

Benefit from opportunities to critically discuss and test arguments about theories and practices on leading-edge topics in science, technology and innovation policy

Further extend their knowledge and awareness of research in science, technology and innovation policy through structured reading and discussion.

Enhance capabilities to critically assess ideas and research arguments in science, technology and innovation policy, and connect these capabilities to enhancing and enriching their own individual doctoral research projects.

The module will further strengthen key skills in analysing scholarly and policy materials, critiquing research designs and literature, formulating independent perspectives, and presenting narratives and arguments in accessible formats.




Syllabus content

The module further engages researchers in science, technology and innovation policy; domains of science, technology and innovation policy are examined; with attention to the evolution of theory and literature and relationships with policy from an interdisciplinary perspective.

The seminars will each focus on a particular topic in science, technology, and innovation policy, with prior targeted reading, and with review and discussion. Key authors and experts will be invited to present at these seminars. Examples of topics to be discussed include: The aims of science policy; technology, sustainability, and inclusive development; assessing innovation policy impacts; the new revolution in production; and policies for emerging technologies. Individual readings will be assigned ahead of each course session, with the expectation that students will have read and be prepared to discuss these readings.

In addition to the seminars, individual tutorial meetings will be arranged with each registered student in each semester to discuss their own research, linkages with seminar topics and methods, readings and assignments.

The capstone discussion will review debates and learning. Students will present and discuss their own perspectives on self-identified topics (typically related to their research project) in science, technology, and innovation policy, focusing on a policy-oriented presentation based on their research topic that links theory with policy analysis and options.

In 2021-2022, teaching in the module will conform with current university and AMBS COVID-19 guidelines. In Semester 1 students will be able to study on campus or remotely. All course readings and other materials will be available online.

Methods of deliveryLectures --Seminar/Tutorial/Workshop/Lab Hours 30 hours



Reading List

Pre Reading: Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J., Responsible research and innovation: From science in

society to science for society, with society, Science and Public Policy, 39, 6, 751–760, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Flanagan, Kieron, and Elvira Uyarra. 2016. Four dangers in innovation policy studies – and how to avoid them, Industry and Innovation, 23:2, 177-188, https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126

Geels, F. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 8-9, 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

Core Text: Individual readings will be assigned ahead of each course session.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126

https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093


Supplementary Text: Multiple readings from prior seminars are available at this link

Assessment


Science, technology, and innovation policy brief – initial outline – focused on the student’s own doctoral research project. (Due 21 January 2022, 10h00 UK)

300 words Formative

Science, technology, and innovation policy brief – discussion and review document, focused on the student’s own doctoral research project. Submitted as a paper. Alternatively, can be written and posted as a blog. Paper or blog options need to be submitted through Blackboard. (Due 13 May 2022, 10h00 UK time).

1200-1500 words 80%

Individual presentation of topic at capstone meeting (16 May 2022).

20%

Resits: Will by assessed by satisfactory completion of coursework.Feedback methodsStudents will receive feedback through a series of methods, comprising:

• Written and/or verbal comments on non-assessed (formative) and assessed coursework.• Informal advice and discussion during course meetings and following presentations.• Responses to student emails and questions. • Individual feedback in meetings with instructors (e.g. in office hours or by appointment).• Specific course related feedback discussion in course sessions.

Feedback for all assessed coursework and formative assessment will be provided within 15 working days of the submission deadline. A working day is defined as Monday to Friday, not including bank holidays and excluding student vacation periods and University examination periods. For submission dates, see section on Assessment.

In addition to the course unit evaluation questionnaire, students are encouraged to give feedback through emails and conversations at any time, and using the online questionnaire near the end of the semester

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ofq6c2i52rz3dp7/AABDTYGmCUeFSq-VxLoHgB9ka?dl=0

Postgraduate Research Programmes Research Training ...

Documents

Transcript of Postgraduate Research Programmes Research Training ...