Search results

Unobtrusive measurement methodologies are critical to implementing intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) for teams. Such methodologies allow for continuous measurement of team states and processes while avoiding disruption of mission or training performance, and do not rely on post hoc feedback (including for the aggregation of data into measures or to develop insights from these real-time metrics). This chapter summarizes advances in unobtrusive measurement developed within Army research programs to illustrate the variety and potential that unobtrusive measurement approaches can provide for building ITS for teams. Challenges regarding the real-time aggregation of data and applications to current and future ITS for teams are also discussed.

This work describes and demonstrates a novel measurement system refered to as videometrics. Videometrics uses third-party ratings of video samples to assess individuals’ characteristics with psychometrically validated instruments of the measures of interest. Videometrics is argued to help ensure valid measurement in difficult to access subject pools, offering substantial promise for future research. This work explains the methodology and demonstrates the applicability and validity of videometrics in multiple studies in the context of a difficult to access subject pool – chief executive officers (CEOs). Finally, the applicability of the method to samples for which lack of access to individuals of interest has limited empirical investigation is discussed.

Due diligence refers to a comprehensive process of investigating and evaluating business opportunities in mergers and acquisitions. While early-stage due diligence usually encompasses financial and strategic assessment, one of the most important things in due diligence is looking at organizational culture at an early stage. This chapter takes stock of the existing research and practice in the area of cultural due diligence and evaluates the strengths and limitations. Based on the review of literature, we developed a framework for cultural due diligence to address the limitations of existing approaches. The framework illustrates a process to screen the M&A targets, gain insight into the target firm’s culture, and identify integration challenges. The process starts with more unobtrusive, indirect, and informal assessments of the target firm’s culture and moves onto more obtrusive, direct, and formal assessments.

This chapter discusses the benefits, limitations, and challenges in developing research projects that integrate a combination of archival, behavioral, and qualitative research methods. By demonstrating the inherent strengths and weaknesses of using a single method in isolation, this chapter aims to broaden our understanding of why and how research that examines various issues from the different perspectives is richer than employing any single method and enhances our understanding of a given accounting phenomenon. This chapter also discusses how investigating an issue through multiple research methods can help researchers improve the generalizability of findings and present a panoramic view of a particular phenomenon.

Chapter 18 closes the book with twelve principles relevant for doing case study research. The chapter includes brief discussions of specific must-read literature for each principle. The discussion also emphasizes that accuracy (validity) comes first, not generality. The chapter emphasizes that the dominant logic in seeking generality by using surveys whereby informants write-out answers, tick boxes, and never have the opportunity to answer questions that they themselves frame fails to deliver accuracy except possibly when informants are describing evaluating their own recent experiences (see Chapter 2 for further details). The following key thoughts signify the twelve principles:

• •

  Configural not net effects

• •

  Unconscious not conscious thinking

• •

  Dynamic not cross sectional designs

• •

  Multiple routes not one model only

• •

  Predictive validity not only a best fitting model

• •

  Context not context free

• •

  Conjunctive-disjunctive not compensatory decision-making

• •

  Systems thinking not independent versus dependent conditions

• •

  Multi-person not one-person

• •

  Satisfy not optimize decisions

• •

  Unobtrusive evidence not just obtrusive interviews or observations

• •

  Visual not just verbal data collection and interpretation.

Configural not net effects

Unconscious not conscious thinking

Dynamic not cross sectional designs

Multiple routes not one model only

Predictive validity not only a best fitting model

Context not context free

Conjunctive-disjunctive not compensatory decision-making

Systems thinking not independent versus dependent conditions

Multi-person not one-person

Satisfy not optimize decisions

Unobtrusive evidence not just obtrusive interviews or observations

Visual not just verbal data collection and interpretation.

If we are concerned about the imprecision of case studies as research data, we can console ourselves by noting that a man named Darwin was able to write about a study of the Galapagos Islands and a few other cases. To the best of my recollection, there are not statistics in Darwin's book (Simon, 1991, p. 128).

Current ethnographic research is marked by an expanding variety of approaches that indicates not only the infusion of paradigmatic proliferation into the field but also the expansion of technologies mediating ethnographic exploration as well as the growth in research agendas of educational research. Current researchers therefore have much to draw upon but the diversity of approaches indicates and presents major challenges (Walford, 2002). In particular, the double crisis of representation and legitimation that has become apparent in qualitative research has problematized the very possibility of valid/trustworthy/authentic/useful research. Thus, before an ethnographer even steps one foot, gingerly, in the research site, she would have had to grapple with weighty issues, such as the transparency of language, that have considerable bearing on the formulation of research questions and on the construction of an initial frame for her study. More importantly, the agency of the researcher, as well as the agency of her research subjects – vis-à-vis the structural constraints of epistemic access to the nature of reality – has been cast into doubt, as has the capacity of the researcher and the research subjects to produce a meaningful, dare we say truthful, account of their ways of knowing.

Team cohesion and other team processes are inherently dynamic mechanisms that contribute to team effectiveness. Unfortunately, extant research has typically treated team cohesion and other processes as static, and failed to capture how these processes change over time and the implications of these changes. In this chapter, we discuss the characteristics of team process dynamics and highlight the importance of temporal considerations when measuring team cohesion. We introduce innovative research methods that can be applied to assess and monitor team cohesion and other process dynamics. Finally, we discuss future directions for the research and practical applications of these new methods to enhance our understanding of the dynamics of team cohesion and other processes.