Bmgt 808r: Research Methods Syllabus

University of Maryland – College Park Robert H. Smith School of Business

BMGT 808R: Research Methods Fall 2012
Instructors: Dr. Brent Goldfarb Associate Professor of Management & Entrepreneurship 4548 Van Munching Hall 301-405-9672 [e-mail]

Dr. Rebecca Hamilton Associate Professor of Marketing 3456 Van Munching Hall 301-405-8270 [e-mail]

Dr. Henry Lucas Smith Professor of Information Systems 4341 Van Munching Hall 301-405-0100 [e-mail]

Class Schedule: We will meet on Mondays from 1:00 to 3:40pm in VMH 3330H. Course Description: The purpose of this course is to introduce doctoral students to the philosophy of science and methods for conducting business research. Many business disciplines follow social science research paradigms that include surveys, case studies, qualitative studies, experiments and the analysis of secondary data sources. This course is appropriate for all doctoral students who want to develop a basic understanding of these fundamental business research techniques and when it is appropriate to use them. The major methodology that the course will not include is analytic modeling, which draws on microeconomic theory. Three faculty members representing different Smith School disciplines (information systems, marketing, management and organizational behavior) will guide the seminar. Given time constraints, we will be able to provide an introduction and overview of each topic; to conduct research using one of these methodologies the researcher will have to go into more depth on the chosen approach. Upon completing the course the student should be able to make an informed choice of the most appropriate methodology to be used to explore a given research question. The course is designed to be interactive and hands-on. As part of the course, students will develop a research proposal examining a topic they feel is interesting and relevant to their own discipline. Students will present their research ideas and proposed methods for studying them several times during the course, and will receive feedback from other students as well as the instructors.

Course Topics: 1. Introduction and Philosophy of Research September 10 (HL)  Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions  James D. Watson, The Double Helix  Kilduff, M., A. Mehra, and M. B. Dunn, “From Blue Sky Research to Problem Solving: A Philosophy of Science Theory of New Knowledge Production,” Academy of Management Review¸ 36, (2011), pp. 297-317.  Weber, Ron, “The Problem of the Problem,” MISQ, Vol. 27, No. 1 (March 2003), pp. iiiix.  Peters, D. and S. Ceci, 1982, “Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255

2. Formulating the Research Question September 17 (HL)  Richard L. Daft, “Learning the Craft of Organizational Research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8(4), 1983, pg. 539-546.  Murray S. Davis, “That’s Interesting!” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, 1971, pg. 309-344 (also at http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/courseinfo/AcademicWriting/Interesting.htm).  Karl E. Weick, “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14(4), 1989, pg. 516-531.  Schwab, A. E. Abrahamson, W. Starbuck and F. Fidler, “Researchers Should Make Thoughtful Assessments Instead of Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests” Organization Science, Articles in Advance, pp. 1-15.  Lin, M., H. C. Lucas, Jr. and G. Shmueli,” Is More Always Better? Larger Samples and False Discoveries,” Smith School of Business working paper  Vodanovich, S., D. Sundaram, and M. Myers,” Digital Natives and Ubiquitous Information Systems,” Information Systems Research. Vol. 21, No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 711-723

3. A Look at Several Empirical Methods: Surveys, Case study, Qualitative and Inductive Research September 24 (HL)  Judd, Smith & Kidder, Research Methods in Social Relations, Chapters 6 & 7. (Note there are several editions of this book; please read the chapters on the logic of sampling and on scaling.)  Moore, Gary C. & Izak Benbasat, “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol 2(3), 1991, p. 192-222.  Eisenhardt, K.M., "Making Fast Strategic Decisions In High-Velocity Environments,"

 

Academy of Management Journal (32:3), 1989, pp. 543-577. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14(4), 1989, p. 532-550. Barley, Stephen R., “Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31(1), 1986, p. 78-108.

4. Student Presentations of Research Topics October 1 (RH, HL, BG)

5. Experimental Design: Showing that X Causes Y October 8: (RH)  Brewer, Marilynn B. (2000), “Research Design and Issues of Validity,” in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, Harry T. Reis and Charles M. Judd (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-16.  Schwarz, Norbert (1994), "Judgment in a Social Context: Biases, Shortcomings, and the Logic of Conversation," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 123-162.  Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson and Uri Simonsohn (2011), “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.  Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), “When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.  Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011), "Productivity Orientation and the Consumption of Collectable Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (April), 935-950.

6. Examining Process Mechanisms: M Mediates the Relationship Between X and Y October 15: (RH)  Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.  Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch, Jr. and Qimei Chen (2010), Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (August), 197-206.  Hamilton, Rebecca W., Rebecca K. Ratner and Debora V. Thompson (2011), “Outpacing Others: When Consumers Value Products Based on Relative Usage Frequency,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (April), 1079-1094.  Meyers-Levy, Joan and Rui Zhu (2007), “The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing People Use,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 174-186. [also read review history for this manuscript]

7. Using Moderation to Examine Causal Relationships: Showing When X Causes Y October 22 (RH)  Spencer, Steven J, Mark P. Zanna, and Geoffrey T. Fong (2005), “Establishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are Often More Effective than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 845-851.  Hamilton, Rebecca W. and Debora V. Thompson (2007), “Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers’ Preferences After Direct and Indirect Product Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 546-555.  Nelson, Leif, Tom Meyvis and Jeff Galak (2009), “Enhancing the Television-Viewing Experience through Commercial Interruptions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (2), 160-172.  Williams, Patti, Gavan J. Fitzsimons and Lauren G. Block (2004), “When Consumers Do Not Recognize ‘Benign’ Intention Questions as Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 540-550.

8. Our Three Papers: The Finished Product and What Really Happened…. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly October 29 (RH, HL, BG)  Bakos, Lucas, Oh, Viswanathan, and Weber, “The Impact of e-Commerce in the Retail Brokerage Industry,” Information Systems Research, Dec. 2005.  Thompson, Debora V., Rebecca W. Hamilton and Roland T. Rust (2005). Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 431-442.  David Kirsch, Brent Goldfarb and Azi Gera, "Form or Substance? The Role of Business Plans in Venture Capital Funding", (2009) Strategic Management Journal 30: 487-515. 9. Secondary Data Analysis – Counterfactuals and Inference November 5 (BG)  Stephen Morgan and Chirstopher Winship. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Chapter 1: pages 3‐30. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Christakis, N. A. and J. H. Fowler (2007): “The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years,” N. Engl. J. Med., 357, 370–379.  Cohen-Cole, E. and J. M. Fletcher (2008b): “Is obesity contagious? Social network vs. environmental factors in the obesity epidemic,” J. Health Econ., 27, 1382–1387.  Johns, D. “Doubts About the Social Plague Stir in the Human Superorganism.” Slate.com April 8, 2010  Matthew J. Salganik, et al. “Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market.” Science 311, 854 (2006).

10. Secondary Data Analysis – Identification Strategies November 12 (BG)  Austin Nichols. “Causal inference with observational data”. Stata Journal 2007.  Myles Shaver. “Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategic performance: does entry mode choice affect survival rates?” Management Science 44(4): 571‐585.  Rawley, E. (2010). “Diversification, coordination costs, and organizational rigidity: evidence from microdata.” Strat. Mgmt. J., 31: 873–891  Simcoe, T. S., D. M. Waguespack. 2011. “Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name?” Management Sci. 57(2) 274–290. 11. Secondary Data Analysis – Conclusive Research Design November 19 (BG)  Angrist, JD and J Pischke. 2010. “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2): 3-30  Roberts, P.W., & G.R. Dowling. 2002. “Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 23(12): 1077-1093.  Ahuja, G. 2000 ‘‘Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425–455.

12. Discussion of the Pros and Cons of Different Methodologies, Combining Methodologies November 26 (HL, RH, BG)  Ariely, Dan and Jonathan Levav (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279290.  Bhaskarabhatla, Ajay and Deepak Hegde (2012), Does Management of Intellectual Property Matter? Working Paper, New York University.  Goldfarb, Brent, David Kirsch and David Miller (2007), “Was There Too Little Entry in the Dot Com Era?” Journal of Financial Economics, 86(1), 100-144.  Gourville, John T. and Dilip Soman (1998), “Payment Depreciation: The Behavioral Effects of Temporally Separating Payments from Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (September), 160-174.

December 3 No Class (Proposal Reviews Due)

13. Student Presentations December 10 (RH, HL, BG)

Assignments: 1) Research Topic Presentation - October 1 Please choose a topic area and a research question. Choose carefully as this question will be the basis for several exercises in the course. The current assignment is to prepare a paper that contains the following information and present it to the class. 1. The question you want to investigate. Why is it important? Why is it interesting? What are the possible implications of your research? 2. What theories will inform your research? 3. What are the hypotheses that you will test to answer your question. Important: show how the theories in 2 above lead to your hypotheses. Describe your reasoning. 4. At this point what methodology do you think is most appropriate for testing your hypotheses? 2) Draft Research Proposal – November 26 Continue working on your research topic and prepare a 4-5 page draft report. This report must have the following elements: 1. A hypothesis, with elaboration on why this is an interesting and important question. 2. Description of an experimental test design, with discussion of options and limits. 3. Description of observational or survey data research design, with discussion of data sources, variable operationalizations, potential inference problems, and possible solutions. 4. A tentative conclusion as to which method is preferable given your question. Explain your conclusion and elaborate on the chosen method. Persuade your reader that your strategy is competent and sensible. 3) Proposal Reviews – December 3 On November 26, the instructors will deliver to you two peer research proposals. Evaluate each proposal and prepare one page of constructive comments for the author. All reviews will be single blind (you will know the identity of the author, but remain anonymous yourself). Remember that the idea is to help, so criticism is expected but so are possible solutions. 4) Final Presentation and Report – December 10 Revise your draft research proposal based on your reviewer feedback. In addition, prepare a brief (1 page or less) response letter, explaining how you have responded to critical points, or why you have chosen to disregard those points. Summarize your final research report in a slide deck with exactly four slides that you will present in class.