Search results

Shalev's (2007) critique of the use of multiple regression in comparative research brings together and synthesizes a variety of previous critiques, ranging from those focusing on foundational issues (e.g., the persistent problem of limited diversity), to estimation issues (e.g., the unrealistic assumption of correct model specification), to narrow technical issues (e.g., the difficulty of deriving valid standard errors for regression coefficients in pooled cross-sectional time-series models). Broadly speaking, these concerns can be described as epistemological, theoretical, and methodological, respectively. While the distinctions among these three are not always clear-cut, the tripartite scheme provides a useful way to map the different kinds of critiques that may be directed at the use of regression analysis in comparative research. In the first half of this essay we build upon Shalev's discussion to clarify the conditions under which regression analysis may be epistemologically, theoretically, or methodologically inappropriate for comparative research. Our goal is to situate Shalev's specific critiques of the use of multiple regression in comparative work within the context of social research in general.

This study investigates Rokkan's research programme in the light of the differences between case- and variables-based methodologies. Three phases of the research process are distinguished. Studying the way Rokkan actually proceeded in the research within his Europe project, we find that he follows the protocols of case-methodologies such as grounded theory. In the second phase of the research process, however, he constructs variables-based models as tools for his macro-historical comparisons. To get to variables from the sensitizing concepts coded in the first phase, Rokkan defines his variables as close to cases as possible: variables as nominal level typologies, types as variable values. He thus faces two interrelated dilemmas. First, a philosophy of science dissonance: he legitimates his research only with reference to a variable-methodology, while his research is thoroughly case based. Second, a paradox of double coding: using variable-based models in the second phase, the status of the knowledge available in the first phase memos is degraded. Rokkan cannot decide between the two main solutions to these dilemmas: The first solution is to discard his heterogeneous data, instead working only with homogeneous data that opens up to more consistently variables-oriented research. The second solution is to replace the notion of variables/variable values with typology/types, thereby returning to cases, pursuing comparative case reconstructions in the third phase of research. The study concludes in favour of the second solution.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), initiated by Charles C. Ragin, is a research strategy with distinctive added value for organization studies. QCA constitutes in essence two configurational approaches, each grounded in set theory. One approach uses crisp-sets (dichotomous variables) to analyze cases. The other approach uses fuzzy-sets. While the use of fuzzy-sets has been increasing over the last few years, the crisp-set (csQCA) approach is still used in a majority of empirical applications. This chapter discusses in-depth the application of csQCA in organization studies. This chapter starts with a stylized presentation of two dominant research strategies, case-based research and variable-based research, and how csQCA relates to them. Subsequently, csQCA is further introduced and the different applications in organization studies are discussed. This section ends with a brief step-wise “how to” presentation. The chapter then turns to a presentation of the main distinctive strengths of the approach. In the final part, the chapter discusses extensively the main criticisms which have been raised with regard to (cs)QCA and draws out some of the main implications of this discussion.

This chapter presents a conceptual framework and methodological guide for researching the process of public management policy change in the Latin America region. It provides an explicit the methodological approach for case study research on this topic. The focus on the Latin America region is due to the sponsorship of the Inter-American Development Bank, which desired an explicit methodological guide for conducting research on public sector management reform. While the chapter is specifically geared to this purpose, it also exhibits a distinctive general approach to a large class of case study research designs. This class includes instrumental case study research about processes, incorporating variants that are rich in narrative, explicit in their explanatory framework, and comparative (Barzelay, 2002).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the lived experiences of staff and service-users regarding the introduction of dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) into an NHS forensic learning disability (LD) service.

Drawing on data from two recent qualitative research studies, the research team used a case-oriented approach to see beyond original findings to capture the shared experiences of the participants’ journeys, thus giving a deeper insight to the commonalities of the participants’ voices which is rarely reported in the literature (Sandelowski, 2011).

A common set of phenomena became apparent when the cases were analysed, these included: trust, intensity and worthwhile. It is intended this paper gives some opportunity for reflection and shared empathetic responses to the similar experiences discussed.

The case-orientated analysis adds value to the evidence base by highlighting the importance of the qualitative voice of both the staff and service user. This is important because most available literature reflects the process of setting up a team or DBT service, rather than describing the team experience. Equally, most published literature regarding the effectiveness of DBT is not written from the perspective of the people who receive the therapy.

Shared services are often viewed as a single type of business model but in reality, shared services can be organized in different ways. The goal of this research is to understand the factors influencing the shaping of shared services business models.

Inductive case oriented research is conducted by investigating three different types of shared services arrangements using Al-Debei and Avison's unified framework for business models.

A total of 12 different factors were identified that influence the shape of shared services business models including the path dependency, legal/regulatory driver, customer orientation, target segment, strategic importance, ICT/business orientation, IT governance structure, change strategy, degree of outsourcing, integration potential, economic rationale and the business value.

The level of customization and standardization can influence the potential benefits that can be gained from bundling services and it is important to understand the factors that influence this dimension.

The appropriate configuration of these factors can be helpful to design shared services arrangements with a balanced degree of standardization and customization. The choices regarding the configuration of these factors could result in a more or less effective functioning business model and could influence the governance processes and mechanisms that need to be put in place.

There is no prior research that addresses the shared services business model from a holistic perspective and this research provides a first conceptual model for shared services business models.

Micro-tipping point (MTP) theory includes the proposal that a specific stream of unconscious and conscious thoughts result in a go/no-go discretionary action in a given context (e.g., whether or not to visit a given destination in a given season or year involving particular persons being included or excluded from the trip; whether to buy a Ford, BMW, or Toyota). The specific stream represents a stream or conjunctive combination of thoughts-in-context that results in a tourist party actually taking the steps that include booking the trip and experiencing a destination first-hand. Building such contingency models that are applicable to real-life combinations of unconscious and conscious thinking requires collecting data from informants on both implicit and explicit beliefs, attitudes, and thinking rules relevant for a specific yes/no context. Chapter 14 illustrates applying the long interview for collecting such data and using quantitative comparative analysis for constructing MTP models.

The purpose of this paper is to describe theory building and testing of dual processing of tourist reasoning, judgment, and actions.

The paper applies micro‐tipping point theory and qualitative comparative analysis, using case study data.

Maps of the reasoning, judgments, and actions of five parties of tourist buying major services support dual‐processing theory of deciding on destination choices.

This report does not include the attempt to generalize the findings to large survey samples of informants.

Executives need to go beyond recognizing that what tourists report consciously may differ substantially from what they think unconsciously and to plan on collecting data on both dual processing modes of thinking.

This paper breaks new ground in applying dual‐processing theory in tourist behavior of buying major tourist services.

Although QCA was originally developed specifically for small-N settings, recent studies have shown its potential for large-N organization studies. In this chapter, we provide guidance to prospective researchers with the goal of opening up QCA’s potential for widespread use in organization studies involving large-N settings, both as an alternative and as a complement to conventional regression analyses. We compare small-N and large-N QCA with respect to theoretical assumptions and objectives, processes and decisions involved in building the causal model, selecting the sample, as well as analyzing the data and interpreting the results. Finally, we discuss the prospects for large-N configurational analysis in organization studies and related fields going forward.

Develops a model of the influences on adopting global marketing decision support systems (MDSS) by global marketing organizations. The focus is on the expectations, beliefs, concerns, experiences, and implicit theories about global MDSS adoption of 144 senior marketing managers at 43 global firms. From a quantitative analysis of personal interviews, argues for an adoption model which includes controllable, uncontrollable and personal influences. Finds personnel, marketing mix, consumer trends, competitive pressures, economic conditions, technological change, corporate culture, and personal expectations are associated with adoption, while financial issues are associated with non‐adoption. Governmental policies and personal experience are associated with both adoption and non‐adoption.