The current paper presents a critical class debate of the research methodology adopted by the researcher. The researcher aimed to investigate the most suitable approaches and practices to facilitate team development in oil and gas megaprojects. In order to come up with a suitable research approach, the researcher examined the methodologies adopted by two previous studies. One of the studies conducted by Peterson et al., (2013) used grounded theory. The other study had been conducted by Erickson and Dyer (2004), and used the case study method. The latter used the positivist approach.

The researcher could not have adopted the two approaches adopted in the two studies. One of the reasons is that both utilized a lot of resources and time, which the researcher explains that he does not have. Other class members can agree that the researcher does not have the capacity to collect data for a period of three years as the researchers in the two studies did. In addition, the researcher may not have been in a position to raise all the resources used by the researchers over a period of three years. An important observation that the other class members can agree with is that the study conducted by Peterson et al., (2013) had a major impact on the targeted organization; it led to significant change in organizational culture. The study by Peterson et al. (2013) involved implementing of team development plans, and then making a follow-up. Such changes lead to significant changes in organizational culture, which might, in some cases, faces resistance from the subjects (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 78). In addition, there would be more challenges in trying to convince the leaders of the targeted oil and gas megaprojects to implement such plans. In this regard, the researcher did the right thing by rejecting the methodologies used in the two previous studies.

After rejecting the methodologies adopted by the two studies, the researcher decided to adopt a mixed method using both the positivist and constructionist epistemologies, as well as both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The class members may support the use mixed approach on the ground that some researchers have shown that it helps to improve the validity of the results, among other benefits. However, adopting both of them in some cases may lead to complexities. For instance, the constructive approach is only applied in one organization, and it takes place over a period to determine the effects of changes of over time. In addition, it requires the researcher to have contacts with the study subjects and to collect primary data directly from them until the study period is over (Creswell & Clark, 2011, p. 45). As mentioned earlier, the researcher may not have the capacity to collect such primary data. The researcher should have adopted the positivist only approach since organizational management theory explains that team development in any organization can help to improve the performance of any organization (Creswell & Clark, 2011, p. 45). As the researcher explains, using both qualitative and quantitative methods may have additional benefits than just using one method (Creswell & Clark, 2011, p. 45). However, the researcher does not explain how both qualitative and quantitative data will be obtained. Precisely, the researcher does not give a clear explanation of the data collection methods that will be used to collect primary data from the subjects. The researcher can add more validity to the methodology through adding such information.