Master of Business Administration - Semester 3 MB0050: Research Methodology (Book ID: B1206) ASSIGNMENT- Set 1

1. a. Distinguish between Double sampling and multiphase sampling. Answer:

Double Sampling and Multiphase Sampling Double sampling refers to the subsection of the final sample form a pre-selected larger sample that provided information for improving the final selection. When the procedure is extended to more than two phases of selection, it is then, called multi-phase sampling. This is also known as sequential sampling, as subsampling is done from a main sample in phases. Double sampling or multiphase sampling is a compromise solution for a dilemma posed by undesirable extremes. The statistics based on the sample of n can be improved by using ancillary information from a wide base: but this is too costly to obtain from the entire population of N elements. Instead, information is obtained from a larger preliminary sample nL which includes the final sample n.

b. What is replicated or interpenetrating sampling? Answer:

Replicated or Interpenetrating Sampling It involves selection of a certain number of sub-samples rather than one full sample from a population. All the sub-samples should be drawn using the same sampling technique and each is a self-contained and adequate sample of the population. Replicated sampling can be used with any basic sampling technique: simple or stratified, single or multi-stage or single or multiphase sampling. It provides a simple means of calculating the sampling error. It is practical. The replicated samples can throw light on variable non-sampling errors. But disadvantage is that it limits the amount of stratification that can be employed.

2. What are the differences between observation and interviewing as methods of data collection? Give two specific examples of situations where either observation or interviewing would be more. Answer:
The most complete form of the sociological datum, after all, is the form in which the participant observer gathers it: An observation of some social event, the events which precede and follow it, and explanations of its meaning by participants and spectators, before, during, and after its occurrence. Such a datum gives us more information about the event under study than data gathered by any other sociological method. Participant observation can thus provide us with a yardstick against which to measure the completeness of data gathered in other ways, a model which can serve to let us know what orders of information escape us when we use other methods. By participant observation we mean that method in which the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study, either openly in the role of researcher or covertly in some disguised role, observing things that happen, listening to what is said, and questioning people, over some length of time. We want, in this paper, to compare the results of intensive field work with what might be regarded as the first step in the other direction along this continuum: the detailed and conversational interview (often referred to as the unstructured or undirected interview).3 In this kind of interview, the interviewer explores many facets of his interviewee's concerns, treating subjects as they come up in conversation, pursuing interesting leads, allowing his imagination and ingenuity full rein as he tries to develop new hypotheses and test them in the course of the interview. In the course of our current participant observation among medical students? we have thought a good deal about the kinds of things we were discovering which might ordinarily be missed or misunderstood in such an interview. W e have no intention of denigrating the interview or even such less precise modes of data gathering as the questionnaire, for there can always be good reasons of practicality, economy, or research design for their use. We simply wish to make explicit the difference in the data gathered by one or the other method and to suggest the differing uses to which they can legitimately be put. In general, the shortcomings we attribute to the interview exist when it is used as a source of information about events that have occurred elsewhere and are described to us by informants. Our criticisms are not relevant when analysis is restricted to interpretation of the interviewee's conduct during the interview, in which case the researcher has in fact observed the behaviour he is talking about.? The differences we consider between the two methods involve two interacting factors: the kinds of words and acts of the people under study that the researcher has access to, and the kind of sensitivity to problems and data produced in him.

Our comparison may prove useful by suggestive areas in which interviewing (the more widely used method at present and likely to continue so) can improve its accuracy by taking account of suggestions made from the perspective of the participant observer. We begin by considering some concrete problems: learning the native language, or the problem of the degree to which the interviewer really understands what is said to him; matters interviewees are unable or unwilling to talk about; and getting information on matters people see through distorting lenses. We then consider some more general differences between the two methods. Observation as a method of data collection has certain characteristics. 1. It is both a physical and a mental activity: The observing eye catches many things that are present. But attention is focused on data that are pertinent to the given study. Observation is selective: A researcher does not observe anything and everything, but selects the range of things to be observed on the basis of the nature, scope and objectives of his study. For example, suppose a researcher desires to study the causes of city road accidents and also formulated a tentative hypothesis that accidents are caused by violation of traffic rules and over speeding. When he observed the movements of the vehicles, the persons sitting in them, their hair style, etc. all such things which are not relevant to his study are ignored and only over speeding and traffic violation are keenly observed by him. Observation is purposive and not casual: it is made for the specific purpose of noting things relevant to the study. It captures the natural social context in which persons behaviour occur. It grasps the significant events and occurrences that affect social relations of the participants. Observation should be exact and be based on standardized tools of research and such as observation schedule, social metric scale etc., and precision instruments, if any.

2.

3.

4.

Observation has following advantages: (1) The main virtue of observation is its directness: It makes it possible to study behavoiur as it occurs. The researcher need not ask people about their behavour and interactions he can simply watch what they do and say. (2) Data collected by observation may describe the observed phenomena as they occur in their natural settings. Other methods introduce elements or artificiality into the researchers situation for instance, in interviews, the respondent may not behave in a natural way. There is no such artificiality into the researched situation for instance, in interview; the respondent may not behave in a natural way. There is not such artificiality in observational studies, especially when the observed persons are not aware of their being observed (3) Observations is more suitable for studying subjects who are unable to articulate meaningfully, e.g. studies of children, tribal, animals, birds etc. (4) Obeservations improve the opportunities for analyzing the contextual back ground of behavior. Furthermore verbal resorts can be validated and compared with behavior through observation. The validity of what men of position and authority say can be verified by observing what they actually do. Observation is less demanding of the subjects and has less biasing effect on their conduct than questioning. Interview method Interviewing is one of the prominent methods of data collection. It may be defined as a two way systematic conversation between an investigator and an informant, initiated for obtaining information relevant to a specific study. It involves not only conversation, but also learning from the respondents gesture, facial expressions and pauses, and his environment. Interviewing requires face to face contact or contact over telephone and calls for interviewing skills. It is done by using a structured schedule or an unstructured guide. Interviewing may be used either as a main method or as a supplementary one in studies of persons. Interviewing is the only suitable method for gathering information from illiterate or less educated respondents. It is useful for collecting a wide range of data from factual demographic data to highly personal and intimate information relating to a persons opinions, attitudes, values, beliefs past experience and future intentions. When qualitative information is required or probing is necessary to draw out fully, and then interviewing is required. Where the area covered for the survey is a compact, or when a sufficient number of qualified interviewers are available, personal interview is feasible. Interview is often superior to other data-gathering methods. People are usually more willing to talk than to write. Once report is established, even confidential information may be obtained. It permits probing into the context and reasons for answers to questions. Interview can add flesh to statistical information. It enables the investigator to grasp the behavioural context of the data furnished by the respondents. There are several advantages to personal interviewing. First the greatest value of this method is the depth and detail of information that can be secured. When used with well conceived schedules, an interview can obtain a great deal of information. It far exceeds mail survey in amount and quality of data that can be secured. Second, the interviewer can do more to improve the percentage of responses and the quality of information received than other method. He can note the conditions of the interview situation, and adopt appropriate approaches to overcome such problems as the respondents unwillingness, incorrect understanding of questions, suspicion, etc. Third, the interviewer can gather other supplemental information like economic level, living conditions etc. through observation of the respondents environment.

Fourth, the interviewer can use special scoring devices, visual materials and the like in order to improve the quality of interviewing. Fifth, the accuracy and depdendability of the answers given by the respondent can be checked by observation and probing. Last, interview is flexible and adaptable to individual situations. Even more, control can be exercised over the interview situation. Demerits of interview method Interviewing is not free limitations. Its greatest drawback is that it is costly both in money and time. Second, the interview results are often adversely affected by interviewers mode of asking questions and interactions, and incorrect recording and also by the respondents faulty perception, faulty memory, inability to articulate etc. Third, certain types of personal and financial information may be refused in face-to face interviews. Such information might be supplied more willingly on mail questionnaires, especially if they are to be unsigned. Fourth, interview poses the problem of recording information obtained from the respondents. No full proof system is available. Note taking in invariably distracting to both the respondent and the interviewer and affects the thread of the conversation. Last interview calls for highly interviewers. The availability of such persons is limited and the training of interviewers is often a long and costly process. Situation where observation is appropriate: Observations make it possible to capture the whole event as it occurs. For example only observation can provide an insight into all the aspects of the process of negotiation between union and management representatives. Situation where interview method is appropriate: to study the Reading habits of newspaper/magazines readers.

3. How case study method is useful to Business Research? Answer:

Case Study as a Method of Business Research In-depth analysis of selected cases is of particular value to business research when a complex set of variables may be at work in generating observed results and intensive study is needed to unravel the complexities. For instance, an in-depth study of a firms top sales people and comparison with the worst sales people might reveal characteristics common to stellar performers. The exploratory investigator is best served by the active curiosity and willingness to deviate from the initial plan, when the finding suggests new courses of enquiry, might prove more productive

4. Would case studies be considered as scientific research? Why or why not? Answer:
Research is a scientific endeavour. It involves scientific method. The scientific method is a systematic step-by-step procedure following the logical processes of reasoning. Scientific method is a means for gaining knowledge of the universe. It does not belong to any particular body of knowledge; it is universal. It does not refer to a field of specific subject of matter, but rather to a procedure or mode of investigation. The scientific method is based on certain articles of faith. These are: Reliance on Empirical Evidence: Truth is established on the basis of evidence. Conclusion is admitted, only when it is based on evidence. The answer to a question is not decided by intuition or imagination. Relevant data are collected through observation or experimentation. The validity and the reliability of data are checked carefully and the data are analyzed thoroughly, using appropriate methods of analysis. Use of Relevant Concepts: We experience a vast number of facts through our sense. Facts are things which actually exist. In order to deal with them, we use concepts with specific meanings. They are symbols representing the meaning that we hold. We use them in our thinking and communication. Otherwise, clarity and correct understanding cannot be achieved. Commitment of Objectivity: Objectivity is the hallmark of the scientific method. It means forming judgement upon facts unbiased by personal impressions. The conclusion should not vary from person to person. It should be the same for all persons.

Ethical Neutrality: Science does not pass normal judgment on facts. It does not say that they are good or bad. According to Schrdinger Science never imposes anything, science states. Science aims at nothing but making true and adequate statements about its object. Generalization: In formulating a generalization, we should avoid the danger of committing the particularistic fallacy, which arises through an inclination to generalize on insufficient or incomplete and unrelated data. This can be avoided by the accumulation of a large body of data and by the employment of comparisons and control groups. Verifiability: The conclusions arrived at by a scientist should be verifiable. He must make known to others how he arrives at his conclusions. He should thus expose his own methods and conclusions to critical scrutiny. When his conclusion is tested by others under the same conditions, then it is accepted as correct. Logical reasoning process: The scientific method involves the logical process of reasoning. This reasoning process is used for drawing inference from the finding of a study or for arriving at conclusion. Blummer points out that independently, the case documents hardly fulfil the criteria of reliability, adequacy and representativeness, but to exclude them form any scientific study of human life will be blunder in as much as these documents are necessary and significant both for theory building and practice. Hence,Case studies cannot be considered as scientific research.

5. What are the contents of research reports? Answer:

Contents of the Research Report The outline of a research report is given below: I. Prefatory Items

II. Body of the Report

ngs and discussions

III. Reference Material

6. Write short notes on the following: a. Median Answer:

Median Median is the middlemost item of a given series. In individual series, we arrange the given data according to ascending or descending order and take the middlemost item as the median. When two values occur in the middle, we take the average of these two values as median. Since median is the central value of an ordered distribution, there occur equal number of values to the left and right of the median. Merits of Median 1. Median is easy to calculate and simple to understand. 2. When the data is very large median is the most convenient measure of central tendency. 3. Median is useful finding average for data with open-ended classes. 4. The median distributes the values of the data equally to either side of the median. 5. Median is not influenced by the extreme values present in the data. 6. Value of the median can be graphically determined.

Demerits of Median his is tedious when the number of items in a series is numerous.

is affected by sampling fluctuation.

b. Standard Deviation Answer:

Standard deviation Standard deviation is the most important measure of dispersion. It satisfies most of the properties of a good measure of dispersion. It was introduced by Karl Pearson in 1893. Standard deviation is defined as the mean of the squared deviations from the arithmetic mean. Standard deviation is denoted by the Greek letter Mean deviation and standard deviation are calculated from deviation of each and every item. Standard deviation is different from mean deviation in two respects. First of all, algebraic signs are ignored in calculating mean deviation. Secondly, signs are taken into account in calculating standard deviation whereas, mean deviation can be found from mean, median or mode. Whereas, standard deviation is found only from mean.