Jonker and Pennink argue that management research is structured choice from paradigm to technique. Their textbook is clear on research design, thin on method.
Key points
The book treats methodology as a justifiable way to connect an open or closed question to theory, methods and techniques.
It builds its case through pedagogical frameworks, short examples and checklists, not through original empirical evidence.
What the book argues
The central claim is that methodology is not a questionnaire plus statistics. It is a deliberate, justifiable ordering of choices. The authors separate open and closed questions and make that distinction drive the design. A closed question invites prior theorising, a conceptual model, operationalisation and testing. An open question invites sensitising concepts, an inductive cycle and theory built from data. The Research Pyramid (Ch. 2, §2.3) arranges paradigms, methodologies, methods and techniques. The Box of Bricks (Ch. 2, §2.1) frames problem, question, answer and solution. Research design, in their account, links theory, methodology, context and question (Ch. 2, §2.10). Later chapters apply this to quantitative and qualitative research, criteria, and action in organisations.
How it makes its case
The book is a synthesis for students, not a report of new research. Its evidence is exposition: definitions, figures, boxes, short cases and exercises, with references for further reading. That fits the genre. The frameworks are clear enough to use. The open/closed distinction carries much of the argument, and it is explained with examples such as mental images used by change managers and incentive effects on motivation (Ch. 1, §1.6.1). The conceptual-model chapter is the most useful: it distinguishes models for closed questions, where concepts are operationalised into variables (Ch. 3, §3.5), from models for open questions, where sensitising concepts guide inquiry (Ch. 3, §3.6). Claims about the prevalence of qualitative work in management projects (p. 9) rest on the authors’ teaching experience, not on data. That does not damage the guide, but readers should treat it as a practitioner observation.
The final verdict is to read the book more for orientation, not for method training. It basically succeeds as a concise guide to the logic of research design in management. It is less written as a stand-alone manual.
— Jonker & Pennink, Ch. 2, §2.11
Methodology is not a questionnaire plus statistics. It is a deliberate, justifiable ordering of choices, structured from paradigm down to technique and shaped by the nature of the question and the context in which it arises.
Research design is the justified fit between four elements: the question, the theory, the methodology, and the context (Ch. 2, §2.10). When those four are aligned and the reasoning is transparent, the research is methodologically justifiable.
The book’s task is to make that reasoning teachable. It is a concise guide for master’s and PhD students in management science, written to give them the concepts and checklists they need to design, justify and assess applied research in organisations.
Key point: The book’s argument is a pedagogical one. It does not advance a new theory of method; it orders familiar methodological material into a coherent, usable sequence for students who need to make and defend research choices. The point of the book is that the choices can be taught, and that transparent reasoning about them is what separates research from guesswork.
An open question takes a broad look at a problem and leaves ample space for interpretation. It is often unclear in advance what needs to be examined. The researcher’s basic attitude is dominated by theory development and the search for a grounded theory.
A closed question has a clear outline that can be delineated, operationalised and tested. The researcher formulates hypotheses, designs an instrument, and works from a fixed action plan.
The distinction matters because the nature of the question, open or closed, drives the rest of the design: what theory you bring, what a conceptual model looks like, which methods you choose, and which criteria apply.
Theory comes first. The researcher develops a conceptual model (Ch. 3, §3.5), operationalises concepts into variables, formulates hypotheses and tests them.
The empirical cycle is deductive. Activities are sequenced in advance. The researcher works through a fixed methodological approach and justifies every step in terms of consistency between the theory, the model and the instrument.
Example (from Ch. 1, Box 1.4): “To what degree are people in the organisation stimulated by various incentives for motivation?”
Sensitising concepts come first. The researcher enters the field with a small set of theoretical signposts and lets the conceptual model emerge from the data (Ch. 3, §3.6).
The empirical cycle is inductive. The course of the research cannot be determined in advance; the initial question will often change as understanding grows. Data collection and analysis overlap.
Example (from Ch. 1, Box 1.3): “What kind of ‘mental images’ do change managers use? How do they use these images?”
The Research Pyramid (Ch. 2, §2.3) has four levels. On each level the researcher makes choices, and the choices must be coherent with each other: paradigms at the top, methodology and methods in the middle, techniques at the base.
The Box of Bricks (Ch. 2, §2.1) is a four-part puzzle of problem – question – answer – solution. It shows that a problem does not translate directly into a solution; a research question has to mediate between them, and the answer has to be produced by research.
Approach A: the researcher creates an image of empirical reality in advance, behind the desk, from existing knowledge. The conceptual model structures the remaining activities; the research tests whether those prior ideas are correct.
Associated with the positivist tradition and with quantitative research in Ch. 4.
Approach B: the researcher needs theoretical notions, but the people in the organisation hold the key to knowledge. The researcher tries to observe reality through their eyes and to understand how they experience their situation.
Associated with the constructivist tradition and with qualitative research in Ch. 5.
A conceptual model is an abstraction of a part, function or aspect of reality. It relates the research to existing literature, focuses the investigation, and makes explicit which factors the researcher will and will not take into account (Ch. 3, §3.4).
Its role differs sharply depending on whether the research is guided by a closed or an open question. This distinction is the strongest and most usable part of the book.
The model is built in advance and drives the rest of the research. Concepts are operationalised into measurable variables (the “construct as meant”, Ch. 3, §3.5) and a limited number of hypotheses are formulated.
The crucial risk is reification: mistaking the model for the reality it abstracts. The book warns against this and asks the researcher to justify each translation step.
The model is the product of the research, not its starting point. Sensitising concepts (Ch. 3, §3.6) guide the inquiry until the researcher reaches saturation: the point at which further data and analysis no longer produce new insights.
The model is constructed through interaction with the people involved; it may end up looking quite different from the initial sensitising concepts.
The book is a synthesis for students, not a report of new research. Its evidence is exposition: definitions, figures, boxes, short cases, exercises and references for further reading.
That fits the genre. The frameworks are clear enough to use, and the open/closed distinction carries much of the argument. But the examples illustrate the advice; they do not test it.
Claims about the audience — such as the statement that most management projects are qualitative — rest on the authors’ teaching experience (p. 9), not on data. Readers should treat them as practitioner observation.
The frameworks of Chs. 1–3 and the criteria of Ch. 6 are clearly presented, internally coherent, and illustrated with cases that a student can follow. The Research Pyramid and the open/closed distinction do the work the authors promise.
The book asserts the value of its own frameworks and the limits of rival approaches. It does not demonstrate their effects. Chs. 4–5 introduce methods and techniques but do not equip a student to use them without other texts.
The book succeeds as a concise guide to the logic of research design in management. It is less successful as a stand-alone manual. Students and supervisors should use it early, then supplement it with dedicated methods texts.
The brevity has costs. The quantitative and qualitative chapters are too short to train a student in statistics, coding or saturation. The examples illustrate, but do not test, the advice. The book sometimes asks for trust where it could have demonstrated the effects of its own frameworks.
Chapter 7, on acting and organising, is a theoretical extension that sits apart from the research guide. It is interesting, but it is not the book’s main task.
These are limits of scope, not failures of argument. The authors say the book is an introduction. For the audience they have chosen, that is enough.
Master’s and PhD students in management, who need to make and defend research choices.
Supervisors and lecturers, who can use the frameworks to structure supervision and course design.
Managers who commission applied research, who may come to understand why the framing of a question matters. This benefit is a reading, not a claim the authors make.
Advanced methodologists who want to debate the foundations of methodology.
Researchers who need technique: how to judge a regression, code an interview, or decide when saturation has been reached. Those need other texts.
Bottom line: Read it for orientation. It gives students something to act on — checklists for problem definitions, research proposals and thesis assessment, plus a glossary. What it does not give is method training. That is a fair trade for a guide of this length.
NEWSLETTER
Business research. Essential insights. All in your inbox.
Subscribe for free to Business Science Daily for the latest business research, management insights, academic rankings, and ideas shaping the world of business.