Business Research Methods
- Choice of research questions. Supporting literature review
- Research method. Quality and validity of the research
- Untested Arguments, Findings, Conclusions
This assignment is based on two articles as follows: "Bribery: Australian managers' experiences and responses when operating in international markets" (Pedigo & Marshall, 2009) and "Why do firms bribe? Insights from residual control theory into firms' exposure and vulnerability to corruption" (Lee et al., 2010). The former presents findings drawn from a qualitative research among senior Australian managers operating internationally and the latter is based on a quantitative research covering a large number of firms operating in 61 different countries. This assignment presents the analysis and evaluation of these two articles and deeply explores the research methods used and their quality.
The analysis of each article is multilayer and starts at the outer with evaluation of the journal which the work is published in, continues with assessment of the references used and digs to the core with estimation of the research done, which draws the attention to the suitability of its questions and way of selecting the observed samples, respectively its quality and the reliability of the conclusions made. At its final stage, the analysis presents an overall evaluation of each article.
[...] The findings and conclusions are proved by and derived from the research undertaken. Despite this, the continuous repetition of the findings makes slightly negative impression. Regarding the evidence, the truthfulness of the collected data might be questioned again and this is a serious weakness. It is important that the data consists of self-reported experiences of participants without verification from other parties. Consequently, the entire research is firmly based on one main untested assumption and it is that the interviewees tell the truth. [...]
[...] In terms of representativeness, the research might be assessed as very poor. There are no clear criteria for selection of the participants. The reader is informed that the interviewed 70 managers operate internationally in 3 industries, but there is no information about the number of Australian companies operating internationally in each of these sectors, the exact number of interviewed managers from each industry, size of companies and etc. Regarding the auditability, Pedigo and Marshall (2009) have made a good, positive effort as they have ensured a detailed audit trail providing a comprehensive account of the research process. [...]
[...] The representativeness is a key factor and the lack of guarantees for it weakens the work. In the analyzed case the authors do not only fail to prove it but even the opposite impression is built. When looking at the country and sample size list, the attention is riveted on the obvious disproportion between the number of each country's participants and the size of the country's economy. This fact makes the validity of the research doubtful. Untested Arguments, Findings, Conclusions Pedigo and Marshall's (2009) article is relatively well argued. [...]
[...] At its final stage, the analysis presents an overall evaluation of each article. Provenance Pedigo and Marshall's (2009) work is published in the Journal of Business Ethics, while Lee et al.'s (2010) one in Management International Review. According to the Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide, both of the articles are assessed with which means that they are ranked as high quality journals and have a high reputation in the academics' world (ABSAJQG, 2012). References Both of the studies cite a huge number of other works which causes confusion to the reader in certain moments. [...]