Answers to Case Studies PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Answers to Case Studies PDF

Description

Answers to case studies in 7 th edition Case 1: Researching buyer–supplier relationships1 1. How has Ella developed her research to make it more applied? By looking at the difference between researcher and practitioner orientations, Ella reviews her focus of interest, methodological imperative, key outcomes and views of the other. She develops her research to have some practical consequence, and looks at the purpose and context of basic and applied research. She defines her research objective with more focus related to the business problem, anticipating her findings will be of more practical relevance and value to managers. 2. What learning points do you think Ella added in her reflective diary after she had spent some time developing her ideas? Ella will have considered how her research questions and research objectives may need to be reformulated to address her new goals (of more practical relevance). She will have noted down how her methodology might need to change to meet her more specific objectives. Her reflective diary will comment on how she intends to keep her project tutor and the business updated on her approach and progress. 3. Now that Ella has formulated and clarified her topic with her project tutor and the business and reviewed the literature, what should she do next? Try to answer the question by outlining the stages she will follow to show a systematic approach. Ella should develop a multistage approach to her research. She should start by formulating her research design in more detail and addressing any ethical issues she anticipates. She should then plan her data collection, thinking about her sampling, reviewing secondary data and collecting primary data in the form of interviews, questionnaires and/or observations. She should think in advance about how she will analyse her data and whether she will need to use quantitative or qualitative data analysis methods, or a mixture of both. She should then write up and think about how she has addressed and achieved her original goals. Ella should use a systematic approach whereby the stages are linked and she should use her reflective diary to help her see where she might need to make changes and remain flexible.

1

Answers provided by Rosanna Cole

Case 2: ‘Helpful but not required’: A student research proposal 1. Using the information in the ‘Background’ section of Lian’s proposal, what concerns may be raised about the proposed ‘Research design’, ‘Title’, ‘Research question and research objectives’? The information in the ‘Background’ section is helpful in terms of outlining the concept of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and the development of its theoretical constructs. However, it is also evident in this section that OCB is a problematic concept. Time and changes in the nature of work have led to its dimensions being questioned and revised. The causes of OCB are also problematic and the discussion in this section acknowledges that these are likely to be affected by context and culture. The discussion in this ‘Background’ section also raises the issue of relationships between OCB and psychological contract theory, and between OCB and organisational justice theory. Each of these theories may also be seen as being conceptually problematic and each is also likely to be affected by context and culture. The ‘Background ‘section ends before considering the potential difficulties of applying these theories to a specific research setting or referencing accepted and available scales to seek to measure each of these theoretical constructs. Having recognised the problematic nature of these theoretical constructs, this proposal simply moves to state a research question and objectives and the method to be used. Even without raising these concerns about the validity of seeking to measure these theoretical constructs, the proposed research question and research objectives appear to be ambitious. While the use of a questionnaire may allow for the incorporation of different scales and for the data collected to be analysed in a standardised manner, the proposed scope of this project only adds to concerns about its validity. Collecting lots of data does not overcome concerns about validity. There must therefore be a concern about analysing and interpreting the complex strands of data that would be collected through the proposed questionnaire. You have also probably noticed that the title indicates a narrower scope for the project than the research question and objectives. This raises a point that we return to in Question 3. If the scope of the research question and objectives are ambitious, then some of the information in the proposed ‘Method’ might be seen as being insufficient. The three lines of text in the ‘Research design’ needs to be developed – we can return to this in response to Question 3. We will look at what further information would be helpful to know about the participants in Question 2. In relation to the information in ‘Techniques’ there is perhaps scope to consider whether translation of concepts might be difficult. Second, whether pilot testing by ‘fellow students’ will be adequate if do not know more about the proposed participants. Third, there must also be a concern about the engagement of the proposed participants, as outlined in the section headed ‘Ethical considerations and procedures’. Administering a questionnaire at a distance, where this is carried out by others, especially those who have a defined relationship to the participants, may lead to responses that are unreliable or incomplete (remember that the host company is involved in the sample and the return of the completed questionnaires). 2. What further information would be helpful to know in the ‘Participants’ section? In addition to the concerns raised in Question 1, it would also be helpful to know more about the intended research participants. We are told that these work for a company in China, but we are not told anything about the nature of the organisation: where it is, what it does, which sector or

Saunders et al., Research Methods for Business Students, 7th edition, Answers to Case Studies

industry it operates within, or who own it. We have not been told anything about the size or maturity of the company. We also do not know anything about the nature of its workforce, how large this is, or of the characteristics of those who might participate in the proposed research project. These and other possible factors may affect the nature of the proposed research project and its outcomes. Without further information it may therefore be difficult to make an assessment about this proposed research project. This is not to say that all of this information is required; rather it is to ask the question, ‘what information about the organisation and the proposed participants should we know in order to be able to make an informed and valid assessment of the proposed research project?’ 3. Drawing on your responses to Questions 2 and 3, how would you re-draft the ‘Title’, ‘Research question and research objectives’ and the ‘Research design’? Before you consider this answer you will hopefully have been working on your response to the question. You will hopefully have a revised ‘title’, ‘research question and objectives’ and ‘research design’ – and perhaps a completely revised ‘method’. Your time and effort in redrafting these should, hopefully, lead you to reflect on what is required to draft an effective and efficient research proposal. The length of these proposals is limited and it is easy to write up to your allocated word limit without really addressing what is required. As you have found out, writing a short piece is often much more difficult that writing something without a word limit. Research proposals undoubtedly benefit from repeated re-drafting – every words really counts when you have so few to explain so many different and important aspects. Your title and research question need to concur. Your research objectives need to operationalise the title and your research question, and to provide you with a coherent and connected process to follow and fulfil. However, the scope of title, research question and objectives need to achievable if challenging. In relation to Case 2(e), you may have decided to narrow the scope of this just to examine the applicability of OCB to the proposed organisation. Alternatively, you may have decided to examine the relationship between OCB and only one other theoretical area. We cannot say that there is a perfect answer to this question; rather if you were embarking on this project you would benefit from knowing that your ambition is unachievable! Effort spent on the proposal is likely to be rewarded during the remainder of your research project. We indicated in the response to Question 1 that the section headed ‘Research design’ needed to be developed. It simply says that the intention is to use a survey strategy and to utilise some existing scales from academic journals. It also indicates a cross-sectional nature. Reaching for a ‘survey strategy’ isn’t always very meaningful, or the best way to achieve a satisfactory outcome. ‘Survey’ should not be automatically equated with using a questionnaire. This section therefore needs to tell us more about the use of this type of strategy and to justify its use, albeit briefly. Remember that earlier work in OCB focused on conducting interviews and it may be more appropriate to conduct these in an exploratory, cultural context than to seek to use an inappropriate approach. Choice of strategy should be based on appropriateness, not convenience. Where a questionnaire is to be developed, this section also needs to reference the journal articles and scales to be used, to demonstrate what these are and their availability (where scales are included in journal articles, they are often incomplete). Only by including these references can we know whether they are available and suitable. It would of course be for the researcher to justify scale selection, suitability and compatibility. More detail is also required about the cross-sectional nature of the proposed research design.

3 © Pearson Education Limited 2016

Case 3: After the crisis: a systematic and critical review2 1a. Why is it important to have a clear focus and a well-formulated review question? Unfocused reviews tend to cover too many topics and refer (with little, if any, explanation) to a large number of concepts. Without a clear review question it is often hard to see how these concepts are relevant and the result is often a diffuse and very broad theoretical canvas. A narrower framing of the review on a specific question, to which the reviewer seeks to contribute along with a clear explanation of its relevance to the topic at hand, is therefore desirable. A specific review question helps ensure that reviews either focus on a discrete field of study or address specifically a gap, problem, puzzle or debate within that field with reference to existing evidence and/or theory. 1b. What problems might you encounter if your focus is too broad or too narrow? A literature review requires the author to find an appropriate balance between breadth, depth and resources. Typically, the broader the topic, the less thorough the review can be and the more resources (primarily time and effort) will be required. For example, a review on the entire topic of ‘leadership’ would not really be feasible, even in a PhD project, for a search for the term ‘leadership’ in the database EBSCO reveals over 140,000 sources! Whilst a review topic may be too broad to make a review feasible, a review can also be too narrow. For example, a search on the topic of ‘technology leadership’ reveals only a handful of relevant articles. A review of this topic might be too specific and it would be important to contextualise the topic within the broader fields of both leadership and technology studies and to provide sufficient background information. 1c. Why was it important for Emmanuel to revise his review question? Emmanuel was advised by his discussion forum on LinkedIn to focus on industrial accidents rather than all crisis events and to concentrate on the role of investigations and Inquiry reports. Inclusion of all crises, natural disasters, was making the scope of the review unmanageable in the time available. Given the new focus, Emmanuel amended his review question to: What is the role of investigations and/or public inquiries in facilitating or inhibiting organisational learning and change after major industrial accidents? It was important to ensure that the review question matched this change in focus because as the review progressed Emmanuel would have to use the review question make choices about those articles to include and those which should be rejected. 2a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being systematic in your approach? Some advantages of being systematic:

2

•

Involves a thorough and comprehensive search

•

Requires reviewers to be rigorous and thorough

•

Makes the scope and boundaries of the review very clear

•

Reports what we do and do not know about a topic or question

Answers provided by David Denyer

Saunders et al., Research Methods for Business Students, 7th edition, Answers to Case Studies

•

Allows for rapid updating.

Some disadvantages of being systematic: •

Can be too mechanistic (blindly following a process) restricting exploration and innovation

•

Can be descriptive – simply reports the findings with no analysis and synthesis

•

Can be laborious and resource intensive (time and effort).

2b. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being critical in your approach? Some advantages of being critical: •

Encourages an awareness of one’s own position about the topic

•

Makes clear the assumptions and arguments in the papers included in the review

•

Takes into account alternative positions and opposing arguments

•

Seeks patterns and makes connections across the studies

•

Presents clear, reasoned and consistent arguments.

Some disadvantages of being critical: •

Can be biased/unbalanced – if the reviewer only includes papers that support their initial assumptions

•

Can be disordered, haphazard and incomplete if no system is employed

•

Can be highly dependent on the knowledge and skill of the reviewer.

2c. How did Emmanuel balance being both systematic and critical? Emmanuel was systematic by means of: •

Employing a consultation group

•

Focusing on a well-formulated question

•

Conducting a thorough search

•

Documenting every step of the process

•

Making explicit his inclusion and exclusion criteria

•

Appraising the quality of the articles included in the review

•

Summarising and tabulating the studies included in the review.

Emmanuel was critical by means of: •

Highlighting the different perspectives, or schools of thought within the field

•

Surfacing some of the core assumptions made by the authors he was reading

•

Being sensitive to his own position and personal and beliefs about the topic

5 © Pearson Education Limited 2016

Saunders et al., Research Methods for Business Students, 7th edition, Answers to Case Studies

•

Looking at the findings in a new way and shedding fresh light on texts he was reading

•

Revealing previously unnoticed connections between ideas

•

Building a line of argument, or storyline that led to a conclusion.

3. Emmanuel has decided to produce a case study of the Deepwater Horizon Accident for his research project. How can he use the findings of his Literature Review to inform his subsequent data collection? Most importantly, Emmanuel’s review will highlight some of the ‘gaps’ in the literature (unaddressed topics), problems with how the topic has been addressed to date, and/or interesting puzzles and debates, which will give rise to his research question for his project. The review will also show how previous studies have been undertaken in this field, which will help Emmanuel to choose an appropriate research method. The review will also be useful in helping Emmanuel make sense of the findings of his project. In his discussion section of his project he will be able to say how his project confirmed, refuted, amended or added something new to the body of existing work in his field.

6 © Pearson Education Limited 2016

Case 4: Chinese tourists and their duty-free shopping in Guam3 1. Why do you think Francisca considered her research idea unsuitable for interpretivism? Francisca’s research aim is to establish the characteristics of Chinese tourists, and how these characteristics affect their shopping motivations in duty-free stores. This means that her research idea is more about observing the behavioural patterns of Chinese tourists, and looking to discover lawful relationships between variables. In the view of interpretivists, reality is perceived by humans and constructed by their social factors, and it is crucial for the researcher to know the context of a behaviour and find its meaning based on the context (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Therefore, the goal for interpretivist research is to understand a behaviour through its process and meaning, rather than to predict or to generalise the behaviour. Unlike the interpretivists, positivist researchers adopt the philosophical stance of the natural scientist and hold the view of ‘working with an observable social reality in order to produce law-like generalisations’, which is more suitable for Francisca’s research aim of generalising Chinese tourists’ characteristics and their shopping motivations in duty-free stores. 2. How did Francisca solve her dilemma? Is there any other way to solve it? Francisca’s dilemma was that she found herself constantly recalling her own shopping experiences in duty-free stores, even though she knew that she should be value-free when conducting a positivist research. Positivists claim that the knowledge of a fact or a cause should be explicable with little regard for the subjective states of individuals (Moore, 1983). In this case, Francisca solved the dilemma by adopting the variables used in a previous research instead of designing the variables based on individual opinions. She could also emphasise her positivist stance by using a highly structured methodology. Positivists argue that social science research cannot match the achievements of the natural sciences in explanation, prediction and control, unless the methods of the natural sciences are applied to it (Lee, 1991). For example, her research can be done in a controlled setting (e.g. airport duty-free) with other controlled protocols (e.g. time of a day, tourists on a specific flight, etc.) so that the research can be isolated from the subjective experiences. Positivists often use methods in which the variables, the context, and the temporal order of events can be controlled so that causal/law-like relationships can be identified (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). 3. How might Francisca’s positivist philosophy and approach impact her research process? In the view of positivism, the social world exists beyond individuals’ perceptions, and reality is objective and tangible. Since positivist axiology is to explain a behaviour under such logic as lawful relationship and prediction, it is very likely that Francisca would develop certain specific hypotheses to address her research ideas. For instance, Francisca’s hypotheses could be along the lines of ‘middle-class Chinese tourists are more likely to buy at duty-free stores due to the lower price for the brand...