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. [...]
[...] This provides an example of positivist research approach. For the purpose of the study they have built a dataset using three World Bank datasets, which cover more than companies in 81 countries. Due to missing values and information about bribery for the firms from Africa and Middle East, these two regions have been excluded and not covered by the research. This fact raises the first questions about the observed sample selection, its representativeness and respectively the quality and validity of the research. [...]
[...] L. and Marshall, V Bribery: Australian managers' experiences and responses when operating in International markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 87: 59-74. [...]
[...] Research method. Quality and validity of the research. Pedigo and Marshall (2009) have undertaken a qualitative research using Critical Incident Technique (CIT). The modern usage of CIT "aims to understand respondents' interpretation of their lived experience" (Fisher, 2010: 192). In this case, CIT was applied using unstructured, open ended, face-to-face interviews with seventy senior Australian managers operating internationally in three different industries (mining, textile and IT). In order to avoid potential inaccuracy of the data, the participants have been asked to tell about incidents occurred within the last 12 months. [...]
using our reader.