Organizational research methods
January 31, 2008 – 6:57 pmIn organizational psychology there is a vast literature on organizations, with data located in many places, including textbooks journals, electronic list servers, and organizational archives and manuals. In large measure, the value and applicability of any of these data sets is determined by the method of inquiry used to obtain the data.
We want to indicate that the case study, field experiment and laboratory experiment are the most frequently used methods of research of study in organizational psychology and we will explain the advantages and limitations of each method of inquiry.
Since organizations around the globe are made up of people, knowledge of interpersonal and social processes is essential for understanding and managing organizations. It is important to generate reliable and valid knowledge in the area of organizational behavior.
Basically, organizations are social enterprises of people coming together to achieve some shared goals that they believe they can achieve more effectively and efficiently together than alone.
We stress the importance of a sound knowledge of theory, data, and applied strategies to work effectively with and in organizations.
Therefore we will try to understand in this paper project the importance of methods of research in trying to find suitable strategies to improve the activity of the organization; we will identify three frequently used method of research and explain the advantages and limitations of each.
Chapter I
Research in organizational behavior
Knowledge about organizational behavior has become increasingly critical to a manager’s performance and to his long – term career success.
Traditional ways of ascertaining knowledge, such as rationalism, personal experience, intuition (means arriving at knowledge without relying on either reason or inference), tenacity (believing that something is true simply because we have always believed it to be true) and reliance on authorities have many limitation.
The advantage of science relative to these more traditional means is objectivity, and it tends to be public, self-correcting, and cumulative. Science defines the understanding it seeks as the ability to describe, explain, predict, and control the subjects of its inquiry (Wagner III and Hollenbeck, 1992).
Description
The propose of some research methods is simply description, that is, drawing an accurate picture of a particular phenomenon or event. The development of scientific knowledge usually begins with descriptive work. The ultimate criterion for evaluating all descriptive research is the fidelity with which it reflects the real world.
Explanation
The ultimate goal of science is explanation – staying why some relationship exists. Some might argue that as long as we can describe, predict and control things, why go any further? Because if we know the exact reason why something occurs we can usually explain and control it much more efficiently.
Prediction
Prediction or stating what will happen in the future is the primary goal of many scientific studies. Prediction requires that we know the relationships between certain conditions and outcomes.
Control
Studies that focus on prediction often lead to further research in which the goal is to control the situation. Predictive studies often uncover relationships between antecedents and outcomes, and if it is possible to manipulate the antecedents, it may be possible to control the outcomes (Wagner III and Hollenbeck,1992).
Managers in organizations are responsible for controlling the behavior of others. Thus the more information a study provides on how control can be achieved, the more useful the study is to practicing managers.
In conclusion we have understood that the scientific way is the best available means for arriving at knowledge and now we need to consider which are the most frequently used methods of research in organizational psychology and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each.
The three primary methods of study that are used most often in organizational psychology are: the case study, the field experiment and the laboratory experiment (Lawson and Shen, 1998).
In general, as we move from case study to laboratory experiment, we’ll gain increasing control over the independent and dependent variables at the expense of losing realism, ecological validity, or touch with the actual organization, members, or events that are internal and external to an organization.
Chapter II
The Case Study
We are taking case study to be a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple source of evidence (Robson,1997).
In general, case studies use a combination of data collection methods, such as interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and observations involving qualitative, quantitative, or both types of evidence. In these studies, researchers observe, measure, and record whatever they find without experimentally manipulating the independent variables. Case studies can be used to provide detailed descriptions, test theory, or generate theory (Lawson and Shen, 1998).
The case studies can be done on a person, on a group, on an organizations and institutions where can study policy implementation and evaluation; industrial relations; management and organizational issues; organizational cultures; processes of change and adaptation; etc.
In case study the design process is in one sense more forgiving than in experiments; there is the opportunity to modify and change focus. To develop a case study design we need: a conceptual framework (covers the main features aspects, dimensions, factors, variables of a case study and their presumed relationships); a set of research questions; a sampling strategy (it is not possible to study everything; we need to decide who; where; when; what are the items to be observed); and to decide on methods and instruments for data collection (interviews, surveys, questionnaires, observation) (Robson, 1997).
In experiments we get the design sorted out at the beginning and then put it into practice. Deviation from the design can be a disaster, possibly entailing us starting again. Case study is more arduous as the design is a continuing issue during the course of the study.
Advantages in using case studies
Case studies give you the entree to variables and research questions concerning individual, naturally occurring entities, whether these be individual people, groups, organizations or whatever.
In consultation evaluation, case studies use descriptive techniques to evaluate the specific effects of consultation on consultees and clients.
Wallace and Hall (1996) indicate several advantages of using case studies in the consultation evaluation framework:
1. Evaluation data uncovered is a consultation case study may call into question the findings of global consultation evaluation approaches or methodologies.
2. The case study often elicits evaluation data that contribute substantively to more formal, traditional, and better – controlled evaluation data.
3. The case study approach allows consultants to evaluate atypical consultation situations not amenable to traditional evaluation methods.
4. The case study method permits consultants to apply traditional evaluation methodologies in innovative ways.
5. The case study, through the consultant’s attention to tight control and scientific principles, has the potential to contribute valid evaluation data.
6. The case study allows consultants to add substance and depth to theoretical evaluation data (Wallace and Hall, 1996).
Used to trace the behavior and reactions of an individual to an intervention, case studies are chronologies of the specific dynamics, processes, and outcomes of consultation in organizations.
Disadvantages in using case study
They would normally focus on current events and concerns, and while they can provide theoretical generalization about processes, they do not permit statistical generalizations.
The limitations of this method include little, control over independent and, to a lesser extent, dependent variables, and the difficulty of determining what independent variable – dispositional, contextual, or both – are responsible for whatever dependent measures are part of the study (Lawson and Shen, 1998).
And because of case study’s intensive nature, can only focus on a small number of cases. This leads to questions about the representatives of the findings, and whether they provide and adequate base for both the development and the answering of research questions.(Robson, 1997).
In conclusion we have understand that the case study can be very useful in the consultation process in organizations, they allow the assessment of consultation effects that more global evaluation methods are unable to detect.
The case study can be used best for exploratory purposes research to generate new topic areas, to provide insights and to suggest hypotheses.
Chapter III
The Field Experiment
First, to be experimental is simply to be concerned with trying new things – and seeing what happens, what the reception is. There is a change in something, and a concern for the effects that this change might have on something else. Two ways in which field research can be conducted are: simply choosing to observe naturally occurring behavior; or choosing to manipulate independent variables and looking for changing in behavior (Bordens and Abbott, 1988).
Experimentation is a research strategy involving the assignment of subjects to different conditions; manipulation of one or more variables (independent variables) by the experimenter; the measurement of the effects of this manipulation on one or more other variables (dependent variables); and the control of all other variables (Robson,1997).
A central feature of the experiment is that you need to know what you are doing before you do it. A great deal of preparatory work is needed if it is going to be useful. An experiment is an extremely focused study – you can only handle a very few variables, often only a single independent variable and a single dependent variable. The major problem in doing experiments in the real world is that you often don’t know enough about the thing you are studding for this selectivity of focus to be a sensible strategy. If we recall from the previous chapter that in case studies there is flexibility to develop and change the focus during the study
Field experiment or true experiment outside the laboratory involves systematic observations of events in real – life organizations and situations. Given that the chief strength of true experiments lies in their ability to get at causal relationship it is unsurprising that experimentalists worry about control over variables. The greater such control, the higher the internal validity. And this applies not only to the independent variables, but also to a whole host of possible extraneous variables (Robson, 1997).
Advantages in using field experiments
Compared to a laboratory, natural settings have several advantages; external validity – generalize ability to the real world – is almost self-evidently easier to achieve when the study takes place outside the laboratory in a setting which is almost real “real life”.
Generalizability
The laboratory is necessarily and deliberately an artificial setting where the degree of control and isolation sets it apart from real life. If we are concerned with generalizing results to the real world the task is easier if experimentation is in a natural setting. Much laboratory experiment is based on student subjects, making generalization to the wider population hazardous. Although this is not a necessary feature of laboratory work, there is less temptation to stick to student groups when experiments take place in natural settings (Robson, 1997).
Validity
The demand characteristics of laboratory experiments, where subjects tend to do what they think you want them to do, are heightened by the artificiality and isolation of the laboratory situation. Real tasks in a real world setting are less prone to this kind of game playing. So you are more likely to be measuring what you think you are measuring.
Subject availability
It is no easy task to get subjects to come into the laboratory. You have to rely on them turning up. Although it depends on the type of study, many real life experiments have subjects in abundance, limited only by your energy and staying power. The crucial feature is random allocation to experimental conditions. If you can find a feasible and ethical means of doing this when planning a field experiment, then you should seriously consider carrying out a true experiment.
Compared to the laboratory experiment, the trade – off is realism for reduced control of the conditions of observations (Lawson and Shen, 1998).
Disadvantages in using field experiments
As with the case study and laboratory experiment, the field experiment has its disadvantages. Moving outside the safe confines of the laboratory may well be traumatic and meet some particular practical difficulties (Bordens and Abbott,1988).
Random assignment
There are practical and ethical problems of achieving random assignment of different experimental treatments or conditions (in withholding the treatment from a no-treatment control group). Random assignment is also often only feasible in atypical circumstances or with selected respondents, leading to questionable generalizability. For small samples of the units being randomly assigned, sampling variability is a problem. Treatment – related refusal to participate or continue can bias sampling.
Validity
The actual treatment may be an imperfect realization of the variables of interest, or a restricted range of outcomes may be insensitively or imperfectly measured, resulting in questionable validity. For exempla, a supposed no- treatment control group may receive some form of compensatory treatment, or be otherwise influenced (Ioan, 1993).
Ethical issues
There are gray areas in relation to restricting the involvement to volunteers, the need for informal consent and the debriefing of subjects after the experiment. Strict adherence to ethical guidelines is advocated, but this may lead to losing some of the advantages of moving outside the laboratory.
Control
Lack of control over extraneous variables may mask the effects of treatment variables, or bias their assessment. Interaction between subjects may vitiate random assuagements and violate their assumed independence (Robson, 1997).
As an example of a field experiment would be an examination of the effects of procedural justice or an explanation by management of a pay cut or reduction in force on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover or voluntary departure from the organization (Schaubroeck, May, and Brown, 1994 in Lawson and Shen, 1998).
Since the researcher may not have control over the magnitude of the pay cut (independent variable), he or she has to take whatever is there in the field. Likewise, there may be limited opportunities to select dependent variables because the employees may be resentful and overworked and refuse or attempt to sabotage any data collection process (Lawson and Shen, 1998).
In conclusion to the field experiment method we have understood that the experiment can study virtually any kind of behavior but is limited by both practical and ethical considerations to “low impact” variables and research questions.
Getting at causal inferences is easier in experiments.
Experiments have to satisfy strict design requirements (on the assignment of subjects to different conditions, and the phasing of interventions). We need to know what we are looking for with high specificity because we are dealing with a very small number of variables.
Because the research is conducted in the real world (to different groups and situations), the results can be easily generalized to the real world. But an important disadvantage is that we have little control over potential confounding variables and dose not allow for subjects to be randomly selected.
Chapter IV
The Laboratory Experiment
Lawson and Shen (1998) sustain that this method allows the greatest opportunities for controlled observations in response to manipulations of the independent variables and measurement of the dependent variables.
Laboratory experiments can involve the systematic study of any aspect of organizations or actions within organizations, such as decision making or conflict resolution, because the researchers simulate or create the testing conditions (Lawson and Shen, 1998).
Advantages in using laboratory experiments
When we conduct research in laboratory settings we gain important control over the variables that could affect our results. The degree of control depends on the nature of the laboratory setting. For example, you are interested in animal learning; you can structure the setting to eliminate virtually all extraneous variables that could affect the course of learning.
This is what Ivan Pavlov did in his investigations of classical conditioning. Pavlov exposed dogs to his experimental conditions while the dogs stood in a sound - shielded room. The shielded room permitted Pavlov to investigate the impact of the experimental stimuli free from any interfering sounds. Like Pavlov, we are able to control important variables within the laboratory that could affect the outcome of our research (Bordens and Abbott, 1988).
Complete control over extraneous variables may not be possible in all laboratory settings, but for the most part, the laboratory affords more control over the research situation than dose the field experiment.
Strengths of the laboratory experiment are the ability to identify and describe causal relationships. A related and powerful reason is that many potential consumers of our esquires give high value to what they see as scientifically validated findings, about cause and effect, perceiving them as leading to practical, relevant knowledge (Robson, 1997).
Robson (1997) develops this argument in the context of studies of research on organizations. He takes the example of the effects of a participate approach to organizing work, claiming that if this is shown to lead causally to greater job satisfaction and individual performance than a non-participate approach, then the resulting evidence may be deemed to have considerable practical importance, since the evidence contains an implicit prescription about the appropriate distribution of influence within work organizations.
Disadvantages in using laboratory experiments
Realism and generalizability tend to be sacrificed in laboratory experiments but for many studies the degree of control of the environment, and of what happens to the subjects involved, is crucial in obtaining reliable data about the phenomenon of interests, and the contrivance and artificiality of laboratory conditions are relatively unimportant.
Robson (1997) sustain the fact that the laboratory is the controlled environment par excellence makes results obtained there very difficult to generalize to any settings other than close approximations to laboratory conditions. He says also that the real world phenomena are best studied outside the laboratory to enhance realism and to make easier to generalize results.
On the other hand, we have Bordens and Abbot (1988) who consider that by using a simulation methodology of the real world in the laboratory experiment we have the ability to generalize results as well as controlling extraneous variables.
In a simulation study, we attempt to re-create (as closely as possible) a real – world situation in the laboratory. When carefully designed and executed, simulation may increase the generality of results (Bordens and Abbot, 1988). And also we have Locke (1986) who argues that the generalizability of findings from laboratory to real world settings is considerable when using simulation methodology. The more realistic the simulation, the greater are the chances that the results will be applicable to the simulated real – world event.
In conclusion, the laboratory approach to research has the advantage of allowing us to control variables and thus isolate effects of the variables under study. However, in gaining such control over variables, we lose a degree of generality of results. Using simulation that is high in experimental realism may improve the ability to generalize laboratory results in the real world.
Conclusion
In conclusion to this paper project we recognize the importance of methods of research in trying to find suitable strategies to improve the activity of the organizations.
We have identified three frequently used methods of research and we understood that each method has advantages and disadvantages
The case study can be used best for exploratory purposes research to generate new topic areas, to provide insights and to suggest hypotheses.
The field experiment method is conducted in the real world the results can be easily generalized to the real world. But an important disadvantage is that we have little control over potential confounding variables and dose not allow for subjects to be randomly selected.
The laboratory experiment has the advantage of allowing us to control variables and thus isolate effects of the variables under study. However, in gaining such control over variables, we lose a degree of generality of results.
Using simulation that is high in experimental realism may improve the ability to generalize laboratory results in the real world.
REFERENCES
______Bordens, S. Kenneth & Abbott, B. Bruce. (1988). Research Design and Methods – A Process Approach. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
______Lawson, R.B., Shen, Z. (1998). Organizational Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
______Radu, Ioan. (1993). Metodologie Psihologica si Analiza Datelor. Cluj Napoca: Sincron Publishing House.
______Robson, Colin. (1997). Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
______Wagner III, A. John & Hollenbeck, R. John. (1992). Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
______Wallace, A. William & Hall, L. Donald (1996). Psychological Consultation – Perspective and Applications. Pacific Grove, C.A.: Brooks / Cole Publishing Company.
Copyright © Sorin Balogh
www.psihoteam.com