1.

a) State the objective of the study To assess customer's behaviour perceptions on a product b)State two research questions for the study What perceptions do customers have on the product? What causes the changes in behaviour perceptions among the customers? 2 a) Outline the experimental design for the study Quasi-experiment design because one where the treatment variable is manipulated but the groups are not equated prior to manipulation of the independent variable. b)State the independent variable and dependent variable in the study the independent variable is behaviour perceptions the dependent variable is the product 3. Explain why experimental studies are likely to yield more accurate and valid findings than other types of research The principle advantage of experimental designs is that it provides the opportunity to identify causeand-effect relationships.Experimental studies tend to be higher in internal validity, non-experimental studies tend to be higher in external validity. One major limitation of experimental research is that studies are typically conducted in contrived or artificial laboratory settings. Results may not generalize or extrapolate to external settings. Two exceptions to this rule are natural experiments and field experiments. Natural experiments document and compare the behaviors of subjects before and after some natural event; e.g., floods, tornadoes, hurricanes. Field experiments involve manipulating conditions in the natural setting for the purpose of determining their influence on behavior. The field experiment is unique insofar as it tends to be moderately high on both external and internal validity. In experimental research, the investigator manipulates conditions for the purpose of determining their effect on behavior. Subjects should be unaware of their membership in an experimental group so that they dont act differently (Hawthorne Effect). In the simplest experimental design, investigators administer a placebo to the control group and a treatment to the experimental group. Experimental designs vary in terms of subjects assignments to different groups, whether subjects were pre-tested, whether different treatments were administered to different groups, and the number of variables being investigated. Experiments are typically structured in terms of independent, organism, and dependent variables. The independent variable is a manipulated environmental stimulus dimension, the organism-variable is some dimension (e.g., sex, race) of more or less stable characteristics of the organism, and the dependent variable is a behavioral dimension that reflects the influence of the independent and organism-variables. The general objective in experimental research is to define the relationship between the antecedent (independent and organism) variables and the consequent (dependent) variables. Experimental designs are especially useful in addressing evaluation questions about the effectiveness and impact of programs. Emphasizing the use of comparative data as context for interpreting findings, experimental designs increase our confidence that observed outcomes are the result of a given program or innovation instead of a function of extraneous variables or events. For example, experimental designs help us to answer such questions as the following:

1.Is TQM having a positive impact on student achievement and faculty satisfaction? 2.Is the parent involvement program influencing parents' engagement in and satisfaction with schools? 3, How is the school's professional development program influencing teacher's collegiality and classroom practice? 4 a) Differentiate the following concepts in research i) Independent and dependent variables Vogt (2005) states that a variable is loosely, anything studied by a researcher. Within quantitative research, a variable is defined much more precisely. An independent variable, sometimes called an predictor variable, is a variable that is being manipulated in an experiment in order to observe the effect on a dependent variable, sometimes called an outcome variable. The dependent variable that is observed or measured to determine the effect on it by an independent variable The independent variables are characterized by: These variables are ones that are more or less controlled. Scientists manipulate these variables as they see fit. They still vary, but the variation is relatively known or taken into account. Often there are many in a given study. The dependent variable is characterized by: Dependent variables are not controlled or manipulated in any way, but instead are simply measured or registered. These vary in relation to the independent variables, and while results can be predicted, the data is always measured. There can be any number of dependent variables, but usually there is one to isolate reason for variation. The difference between independent and dependent variables are as follows: Independent Variable Dependent Variable It is intentionally manipulated It is controlled It varies at known rate Cause It is intentionally left alone It is measured It varies at unknown rate Effect

Example Imagine that a tutor asks 100 students to complete a maths test. The tutor wants to know why some students perform better than others. Whilst the tutor does not know the answer to this, she thinks that it might be because of two reasons: (1) some students spend more time revising for their test; and (2) some students are naturally more intelligent than others. As such, the tutor decides to investigate the effect of revision time and intelligence on the test performance of the 100 students. The dependent and independent variables for the study are:

Dependent Variable: Test Mark (measured from 0 to 100) Independent Variables: Revision time (measured in hours) Intelligence (measured using IQ score) The dependent variable is simply that, a variable that is dependent on an independent variable(s). For example, in our case the test mark that a student achieves is dependent on revision time and intelligence. Whilst revision time and intelligence (the independent variables) may (or may not) cause a change in the test mark (the dependent variable), the reverse is implausible; in other words, whilst the number of hours a student spends revising and the higher a student's IQ score may (or may not) change the test mark that a student achieves, a change in a student's test mark has no bearing on whether a student revises more or is more intelligent (this simply doesn't make sense) ii) Cluster sampling and systematic sampling Sampling is the process of selecting a number of individuals for a study in such a way that the individuals represent the larger group from which they were selected Cluster sampling is a sampling technique used when "natural" groupings are evident in a statistical population. In this technique, the total population is divided into these groups (or clusters) and a sample of the groups is selected. Then the required information is collected from the elements within each selected group. This may be done for every element in these groups or a subsample of elements may be selected within each of these groups. A common motivation for cluster sampling is to reduce the average cost per interview. Given a fixed budget, this can allow an increased sample size. Assuming a fixed sample size, the technique given more accurate results when most of the variation in the population is within the groups, not between them. Systematic sampling is a statistical method involving the selection of every kth element from a sampling frame, where k, the sampling interval, is calculated as: k = population size (N) / sample size (n) Using this procedure each element in the population has a known and equal probability of selection. This makes systematic sampling functionally similar to simple random sampling. It is however, much more efficient (if variance within systematic sample is more than variance of population) and much less expensive to carry out. The researcher must ensure that the chosen sampling interval does not hide a pattern. Any pattern would threaten randomness. A random starting point must also be selected. Example: Suppose a supermarket wants to study buying habits of their customers, then using systematic sampling they can choose every 10th or 15th customer entering the supermarket and conduct the study on this sample. Basically in a stratified sampling procedure, the population is first partitioned into disjoint classes (the strata) which together are exhaustive. Thus each population element should be within one and only one stratum. Then a simple random sample is taken from each stratum, the sampling effort may either be a proportional allocation (each simple random sample would contain an amount of variates from a stratum which is proportional to the size of that stratum) or according to optimal allocation, where the target is to have a final sample with the minimum variabilty possible. The main difference between stratified and cluster sampling is that in stratified sampling all the strata need to be sampled. In cluster sampling one proceeds by first selecting a number of clusters at random and then sampling each cluster or conduct a census of each cluster. But usually not all clusters would be included.

5. What is management research design and what are the features of a good design A research design is a framework or blueprint for conducting the business research project. It details the procedures necessary for obtaining the information needed to structure or solve business research problems. The components of a research design are: Define the information needed

Design the exploratory, descriptive, and/or causal phases of the research Specify the measurement and scaling procedures Construct and pretest a questionnaire (interviewing form) or an appropriate form for
data collection

Specify the sampling process and sample size

Develop a plan of data analysis 6. Discuss the importance of research design in business management research 7. Compare and contrast true and quasi-experiment designs in business management DIFFERENCES A true experiment will randomly assign individuals to separate conditions or levels of an independent variable or combination of variables to see what effect that has on the dependent variable. The key is in the random assignment. In a true experiment anyone could be placed in any of the conditions or levels. Due to the random assignment you can draw stronger conclusions about the causal nature of the relationship between your independent and dependent variable. On the other hand, a quasi experiment has all the same elements except for random assignment. In a quasi experiment the independent variable is something that already exists in the population (e.g., age, gender, eye color). In this way it is similar to an observational design where two naturally occurring variables are measured and correlated. The quasi independent variable could be continuous (e.g., age) or categorical (e.g., gender). This is not a true experiment because we can never be sure that the quasi independent variable is causing the change in the dependent variable or if another third factor can explain the difference if it exists. Quasi-experimental designs come closest to the true experiments; however, there still is no random assignment of participants to groups (Johnson, 2005). The notion of random assignment ensures that the groups you are comparing are relatively similar. This is the reason that quasiexperimental designs are quite appropriate for a classroom research. In most schools and classrooms, randomly assigning students to different treatments (which might necessitate that they change classrooms, teachers,or even school buildings)is simply not feasible. The difference in a table are as follows:

True experiment It emphasize internal validity It assess the cause & effect (in relatively artificial environment) It is a test clear, a priori hypotheses The participants are assigned to experimental v. control groups Random or matching Participants & experimenter Blind to assignment It uses control study procedures Create / manipulate independent variable Control procedures & measures

Quasi-experiment It emphasize external validity It describes real / naturally occurring events Clear to exploratory hypotheses Existing or non-equivalent groups Non-random assignment Participants not blind Control group not possible?

Control often not possible May not be able to manipulate the independent variable Partial control of procedures & measures

Consider an example of puppy ownership. I have a hypothesis that girls like puppies more than boys. I find a sample of 50 girls and 50 boys, then measure the number of puppies each group owns. I find that boys own significantly more puppies than girls. From this I can conclude that gender predicts, is associated with, or is consistent with boys preferring puppies more than girls. You could insert any naturally occurring, quasi independent variable in this example (e.g., body weight, height, etc). SIMILARITIES Quasi-experimental research and true experimental research both attempt to create a design scheme in which the concluded results can be thought of as the best, most logical solution to the question at hand. Quasi-experimental designs tend to do this through a comparison of existing groups. Experimental designs accomplish the same goal through random assignment of individuals to interventions or treatments (Michigan State University, College of Education, 2004). Experiments, especially large-scale, are designed to control for the influences of extraneous variables. The goal is to allow for a maximum level of certainty regarding the impact of an intervention. Specifically, experimental designs must have random selection of subject, use of control groups, random assignments of individuals to the control and experimental groups, and random assignment of groups to the intervention (Henrichsen, Smith & Baker, 1997). The strongest comparisons are made through the ability to conduct a true experiment (Grib-bons & Herman, 1997). To this extent, quasi-experimental designs attempt to rule out unrelated explanations so that the outcome can be attributed only to the experimental intervention. The task is not as straightforward, but through efforts such as matching subjects and statistical analysis, the true experiment is mimicked (Morgan, Liner & Harmon, 2000; SERVE Center, 2007). Specifically, trend replaces the word cause in quasi-experimental research. The goal of quasi-experimental research is to discover the one trend that is a result of the treatment or intervention. Clearly, this is not a simple or direct task and error exists in that process.

The data collection and analyzes are a point of overlap and a point of distinction between experimental and quasi-experimental research. While standardized assessments are utilized in both approaches, they are the singular mechanism to the experimental design. In contrast, quasi-experimental design also utilizes such means as surveys, interviews, and observations. The statistical techniques also have the same appearance, clean and simple. In contrast, quasi-experimental research uses an array of analysis techniques including the t-test, but also extending to correlation, regression, and factor analysis (Dimsdale & Kutner, 2004). Quasi-experimental designs are typically employed if random assignment is not practical, or even impossible. Without randomization, typical issues surface. Even with a comparison group, the concern surfaces of how alike the groups are from the onset. Also, with the loss of control in quasi-experimental designs, it is of concern whether both groups are in some manner exposed to the intervention, intentionally or not. Nonetheless, the biggest weakness of quasi-experimental designs may also indicate the greatest strengtha broader scope of the research design. The controlled, randomized design of true experiments typically lends itself to a very limited, narrow view of the topic of interest (Gribbons & Herman, 1997). In all cases, when human subjects are involved, there is never a 100% guarantee that the results of an intervention can be completely attributed to the intervention itself, with no regard for the opinions and practice of the individuals involved. Simply stated, true experiments work well in laboratory settings. Quasi-experiments work well in natural settings (Schoenfeld, 2006). 8. Explain what is meant by the concept of objectivity, reliability, validity and generalization as they pertain to a research design Joppe (2000) defines reliability as the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable. Kirk and Miller (1986) identify three types of reliability referred to in quantitative research, which relate to: (1) the degree to which a measurement, given repeatedly, remains the same (2) the stability of a measurement over time; and (3) the similarity of measurements within a given time period According to Joppe (2000) validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit "the bulls eye" of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others. Wainer and Braun (1998) describe the validity in quantitative research as construct validity. The construct is the initial concept, notion, question or hypothesis that determines which data is to be gathered and how it is to be gathered. They also assert that quantitative researchers actively cause or affect the interplay between construct and data in order to validate their investigation, usually by the application of a test or other process. In this sense, the involvement of the researchers in the research process would greatly reduce the validity of a test.

References Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved December 10th, 2012, from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Wainer, H., & Braun, H. I. (1988). Test validity. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Vogt, W.P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.