Get premium membership and access revision papers, questions with answers as well as video lessons.
Mgt 6013 Business Research Methods Weekend Question Paper
Mgt 6013 Business Research Methods Weekend
Course:Master Of Business Administration In Corporate Management
Institution: Kca University question papers
Exam Year:2014
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS: 2013/2014
EXAMINATION FOR THE MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
(MBA) IN CORPORATE MANAGEMENT
MGT 6013 BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODS WEEKEND
DATE: AUGUST, 2014
TIME: 3 HOURS
INSTRUCTIONS: Answer Question One and Any Other Three Questions
QUESTION ONE (31 MARKS)
One of the central and most long-lasting debates in entrepreneurship research is between contextual
and dispositional approaches to explaining entrepreneurial activity (for reviews, see Thornton, 1999;
Aldrich, 1999; Shane, 2003). Contextual accounts, rooted primarily in sociology, hold that features of
a position in social structure may encourage or retard entrepreneurial activity independent of the
characteristics of the position’s occupants. As sociological interest in entrepreneurship has grown,
scholars have suggested a number of structural influences on entrepreneurial activity, including the
family of origin (Halaby, 2003; Sørensen, 2007), work environment (Freeman, 1986; Dobrev and
Barnett, 2005), social networks (Stuart and Sorenson, 2005), and the regional cultural and material
environment (Saxenian, 1994; Sorenson and Audia, 2000; Romanelli and Schoonhoven, 2001).
Dispositional accounts, by contrast, emphasize that stable individual traits lead to entrepreneurial
activity, independent of context. A large body of research, for example, links individual differences in
risk aversion to entrepreneurship (Kihlstrom and Laffont, 1979; Cramer et al., 2002; Ekelund et al.,
2005; for a skeptical view, see Xu and Ruef, 2004). Others link entrepreneurial activity to individual
differences in entrepreneurial ability (Lucas, 1978; Dunn and Holtz-Eakin, 2000), the need for
achievement (McClelland, 1961), and other aspects of personality (Zhao and Seibert, 2006).
1
Many advocates of contextual approaches are dismissive of dispositional explanations for
entrepreneurship (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986; Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986; Gartner, 1988; Thornton,
1999). To a large extent, this is due to the perception that evidence in support of the dispositional
approach is weak, or that dispositional factors are relatively unimportant. Thornton (1999: 23), for
example, concluded that “there has been little progress in relating types of entrepreneurs to the
formation of new ventures.” More forcefully, Aldrich (1999: 76) argued that “a major problem for
entrepreneurship and organization theorists has been the pervasive belief that the explanation for
entrepreneurial achievements must be sought in personal traits... personal traits, taken out of context,
simply do not explain very much.”
But unconvincing or weak evidence for dispositional explanations does not constitute strong evidence
for contextual arguments. A central challenge for sociological approaches to entrepreneurship is that
much of the evidence marshaled in support of contextual arguments does not adequately address
potential alternative explanations rooted in dispositional effects. This is perhaps most easily seen in the
growing number of studies that document how the characteristics of employers, such as age, size, and
prestige, affect rates of entrepreneurship (Gompers, Lerner, and Scharfstein, 2005; Dobrev and
Barnett, 2005; Stuart and Ding, 2006). The interpretation of these empirical relationships is
complicated by the fact that individuals choose where they work, for reasons generally not observable
to the researcher but potentially related to their entry into entrepreneurship. The choice of whether to
work for a large or small firm, for example, may be driven by the same factors, such as risk attitudes
and personality, that dispositional researchers claim drive entrepreneurial entry. This naturally raises
the concern that the observed contextual effects are spurious.
The sociological study of entrepreneurship is hindered to the extent that such interpretive ambiguity
persists, for three reasons. First, interpretive ambiguity creates barriers to advances in theory among
both dispositional and contextual researchers, particularly to the extent that it hinders productive
dialogue between scholars. As Shane (2003) pointed out, much of the debate between dispositional and
contextual approaches has been limited to mutual criticism, with each side focusing on faulting the
evidence put forward by the other. Second, disputes over the interpretation of basic empirical patterns
create substantial doubt concerning the field’s understanding of the dynamics of entrepreneurship. The
inability to point convincingly to drivers of entrepreneurship limits the potential impact of scholarship
on entrepreneurship. Third, to the extent that sociologists are unable to address the dispositional
alternative convincingly, their role in explaining entrepreneurial activity is likely to be seen as limited
2
to providing “demand-side” explanations (Thornton, 1999), focusing on factors that influence the
availability of entrepreneurial opportunities. Yet there is no a priori reason to expect that sociological
theories of entrepreneurship should not include explaining why some people respond to opportunities
while others do not (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), or why some individuals try to pursue
entrepreneurial opportunities that may not be there (Sørensen and Sorenson, 2003).
One contextual argument that is particularly vulnerable to charges of spuriousness is the long-standing
idea that bureaucratic work environments suppress individual rates of entrepreneurship. The idea that
bureaucracy suppresses entrepreneurship has deep roots in organizational theory, reaching back to the
classic studies of bureaucracy of the 1950s, which held that the growth of the modern bureaucratic
organization created workers lacking in entrepreneurial spirit, if not hostile to entrepreneurial activity
(Schumpeter, 1950; Whyte, 1956; Merton, 1968). Recent years have seen a renewed interest in the
effects of work environments and entrepreneurship, driven by the more general argument that existing
firms play an important role in structuring the exposure of individuals to entrepreneurial opportunities
and in shaping their desire and willingness to engage in entrepreneurship (Freeman, 1986; Carroll and
Mosakowski, 1987; Romanelli, 1989; Thornton, 1999; Shane, 2000; Romanelli and Schoonhoven,
2001).
The empirical relationship between bureaucracy and entrepreneurship is an appealing focus because it
is one for which alternative explanations rooted in dispositional factors are particularly plausible. It is
not hard to imagine that the traits that would lead people to enter into entrepreneurship are also traits
that would lead them to try to avoid employment in bureaucratic firms. Parker (2006), for example,
developed a theoretical model that implies a negative relationship between firm size and rates of
entrepreneurship due to the self-selection of less risk-averse individuals into small firms with more
variable wages. Along similar lines, recent research based on twin studies suggests that there is a
heritable component to both job values and interests (Keller et al., 1992; Lykken et al., 1993) and
entrepreneurial activity (Nicolaou et al., 2006). Although the precise mechanisms linking genetic
factors to entrepreneurial activity are far from clear, these studies raise the possibility that genetic
determinants shape both workplace choice and subsequent entry into entrepreneurship.
Methodologically, the major challenge in isolating a contextual effect of bureaucracy on
entrepreneurship is to address the sorting of individuals with different observed and unobserved
characteristics into firms with varying levels of bureaucratization. Barring experimental data,
3
accounting for such sorting processes requires longitudinal data in which individuals are observed as
they move between firms with varying levels of bureaucratization. I therefore analyzed the relationship
between bureaucracy and entrepreneurship using a rich, longitudinal, matched employer-employee
data set characterizing individuals in the Danish labor market between 1990 and 1997. These data
allowed me to address, to a much greater extent than in prior research, the concern that individuals
with entrepreneurial inclinations self-select into particular types of organizations.
Required:
a)
With reference to the above excerpt, describe the background within which the study is
situated. (10 Marks)
b) Identify and elucidate the research problem (5 Marks)
c) Discuss the central argument of the paper, clearly explaining how the argument is supported
(10 Marks)
d) Explain why the study used longitudinal data. (4 Marks)
e) Identify the unit of analysis for the study (2 Marks)
QUESTION TWO (23 MARKS)
a)
Distinguish the following terms
(i) (4 Marks)
(ii) Nomothetic versus idiographic methods (4 Marks)
(iii) Theory versus paradigm (4 Marks)
(iv) Deductive versus inductive inquiry (4 Marks)
(v)
b)
Epistemology versus Ontology Qualitative versus quantitative research methods (4 Marks)
State three data collection methods used in qualitative studies
(3 Marks)
QUESTION THREE (23 MARKS)
The research methods section of a study involves considering issues relating to measurement of study
variables (operationalization), data collection, coding and entry, and data analysis.
a)
An important part of data analysis is the identification of the type of data required by a study.
Describe four types of data we encounter in quantitative studies. (12 Marks)
b) Explain what is meant by coding data. (2 Marks)
c) What are the advantages of coding data? (4 Marks)
d) Describe in detail what happens at the data cleaning stage. (5 Marks)
4
QUESTION FOUR (23 MARKS)
A MBA student has decided to study the effect of job satisfaction on employees’ productivity. She
observed that job satisfaction has three dimensions including satisfaction with compensation,
satisfaction with clients and satisfaction with challenge of work. Moreover, she felt that there are other
factors that may influence employees’ productivity such as employees’ age, marital status, gender,
level of education and size of immediate family.
Required:
a) Design a conceptual model for the study.
b) Identify and justify your choice of the independent, dependent, control and possible moderators
for your proposed model.
c)
Explain how she should go about analyzing the data.
(6 Marks)
(12 Marks)
(5 Marks)
QUESTION FIVE (23 MARKS)
a) Why is it important to review literature when conducting research? (5 Marks)
b) Define plagiarism (2 Marks)
c) Describe four forms of plagiarism (8 Marks)
d) Explain four strategies you should use when writing to avoid plagiarism. (8 Marks)
QUESTION SIX (23 MARKS)
a) Differentiate between basic and applied research
b) Elucidate five ethical issues that should be considered when conducting research.
c) Briefly describe how you would go about identifying a research topic.
(4 Marks)
(15 Marks)
(4 Marks)
5
More Question Papers
Popular Exams
Return to Question Papers