Advanced Research Methodology Assignment – Final Project

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Advanced Research Methodology Assignment – Final Project

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Advanced Research Methodology Assignment – Final Project

Q1

Throughout this answer, the term empirical evidence refers to any information derived by a researcher through experimentation or observation during a study employing the scientific method. It is also any information resulting from a scientifically conducted study that is used to authenticate or reject a claim, statement, or hypothesis (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Similarly, validity is the appropriateness of the research process, data collection tools, and data (Leung, 2015). In qualitative research, validity spans across the research question, to the research design, methodology, sampling, data analysis, results and conclusions (Leung, 2015). Precisely, validity is about the accuracy of the methodological measures used in a study and their ability to produce the outcomes or results based on the variables or phenomenon that was intended to be measured.  In this regard, a study is said to be valid when its produces findings that are consistent to the variations, characteristics, and properties found in real life, may it be in a social or physical context. The validity of research results is categorized as internal validity and external validity (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Internal validity is the extent of accuracy with which the results (scores in this case) represent the data collected in a study or quantify what they were designed to measure. External validity is the extent to which the research results can be transferred to other study settings or contexts, or how accurately they describe the sample’s reference population. Moreover, validity of a measuring instrument is classified as criterion-related validity, construct validity, and content validity (Bolarinwa, 2015; Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Criterion-relate validity emphasizes the scores obtained from an instrument and their correlation with those from a different instrument in use currently or in the future, which can be categorized further as concurrent and predictive validity, respectively (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Concurrent and predictive validity results when the scores of two instruments collect in the same study conducted concurrently correlate or when they correlate to those of another instrument to be used at a later date, respectively (Cohen et al., 2015). In the same vein, research results can have construct validity if the measured used to obtain them are consistent with their theory underpinning the test design (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Construct validity is tested by comparing the results from two instruments measuring the same concept and determining the size and the direction of their correlation. If the scores from the two instruments are highly correlated, then they can be said to have convergent validity. Contrastingly, if the correlation of the variables from the two instruments is not correlated, then the instruments have discriminant validity. However, if the measurement of the instruments is unrelated to the variable they purported to measure, then the instruments have divergent validity (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Another kind of validity associated with research instruments is face validity, which is verified by experts in the subject matter or field of study. In this regard, an instrument has face validity when it has a name suggesting what it measures, as verified by an expert (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Face validity is more about the acceptability of the instrument by the participants based on its appearance and attractiveness rather than its ability to measure its intended variables, thus making it very subjective (Zamanzadeh, et al., 2015). In this respect, during the actual study, face validity can influence the results by introducing a bias from the respondent, especially when measuring sensitive and controversial variables. In this regard, face validity should be avoided when the participants need not know exactly what is being measured if such knowledge would influence the scores by withholding vital information or offering a misleading result to avoid judgement from the researcher.

In turn, reliability of results is their replicability from the measurements and procedures used in a study. In research, reliability is a measure of the validity of the research instruments and is a measure of the level of bias that a measure introduces in the results. Therefore, a measure is reliable when it delivers consistent measurements across different items in the data collection instrument and at different times (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Therefore, it is characterized by internal consistency, stability, and equivalence (Bolarinwa, 2015).

The empirical evidence that would strongly support the validity and reliability of scores include the medical (physical) status and the psychological wellbeing of fully or partially-recovered Covid-19 patients. The empirical evidence on the medical status of the patients includes lung functionality and persistence of symptoms, while that on the psychological status would be the level of anxiety and presence of depressive disorder symptoms. This evidence can either be in the form of numerical data if the variable is quantifiable, or in form of statements that indicate the level of the variable. Empirical evidence given in statement form would be, for instance, the persistence or severity of breathing difficulties, which can be graded across a scale ranging from very high to very low.

The scores of the research are likely be derived from test instruments, such as questionnaires and interviews, which may be administered after a specific period following discharge from hospital or at several intervals after recovery. These instruments would be valid if they deliver accurate scores that represent the medical and psychological data of patients. Similarly, the instrument would be reliable if it can reproduce accurate scores with another sample or in different settings other than Malaysia. The items in a questionnaire in this study would have numerical options, a range of levels, often in a Likert scale, or a description from an open-ended response. In an interview, the scores providing the evidence would be inform of perceptions of the participants, as presented in their narratives.

For the instrument to have content validity that will ensure that it delivers valid evidence, a subject matter expert, such as a medical doctor and a psychologist should be involved in the development of the instrument. In turn, construct validity can be assured through assessment methods like item response theory model, correlation analysis, and factor analysis (Mohamad et al., 2015). Criterion-related validity can be enhanced by determining the correlation coefficient between the instrument and another related one. Also, the level of agreement between the assessors of the instrument can be measured using the percentage-agreement statistic. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient (ρ) is used to measure the reliability of the scores produced by the instrument. Acceptable reliability should have a coefficient of at least 0.7, while 0.9 and above is indicative of very high reliability (Bujang, Omar, & Baharum, 2018). 

Q2

Q2a

The purpose of this applied research is to develop strategies for rapid recovery of business enterprises following the coronavirus pandemic and building resilience against similar disastrous events in the future. The overall aim of is study is to explore the critical factors that hinder the speedy recovery of business enterprises following a global crisis and impede them from building long-term resilience against such events, with the view of ensuring business continuity and survivability.

The coronavirus pandemic is labeled a black swan event because it was unpredictable and has precipitated a severe health and humanitarian crisis worldwide, whose full ramifications are incomprehensible as they are still unfolding (Nicola, 2020). The problem with this kind of a phenomenon is that it is unprecedented, cannot be addressed with a one-off intervention, its end is unforeseeable, and it have debilitating and far-reaching social, cultural, and economic ramifications, in individuals, groups of individuals, and business organizations. Indeed, this pandemic has been likened to the Global Recession of 2008, the Second World War, and the Great Depression of the 1930s, with the likelihood that it will be worse if the current trends continue unfettered (Ratten, 2020). The adverse effects on business enterprises are manifested by the interruption of supply chains, discouragement of business meetings and travel, production interruptions, and the slump in demand in the market across the world (Nicola, 2020).

Business executives can help decipher the complexities of this crisis because they have experienced first-hand the benefits and detriments of the ongoing pandemic on their business enterprises. They are also the best positioned to help devise recovery and resilience building interventions, considering that they will be the implementers of such strategies in their business organizations. Therefore, studying this phenomenon as a lived experienced from the business executives’ perspective through qualitative research is imperative for developing innovative intervention measures that can sustainably address this problem (Vandenbussche, Edelenbos, & Eshuis, 2019).

Q2b

The researcher’s interference in the study will be minimal. The applied research will be correlational, thus descriptive of the experience of the business executives as they grapple with the phenomenon of business crises presented by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Since the study will be conducted in its natural settings, meaning that the researcher will not manipulate any variables or conditions that will influence the responses of the participants, then the researcher’s interference is minimal because the normal flow of events will not be interrupted or manipulated (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016)

Although, the researcher is situated in the phenomenon of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and interacts with the actors aggrieved by the crisis in the business world, he cannot manipulate the variables of the study because the study of correlational rather than causal (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). The researcher’s interaction is only to the extent of collecting data from them through questionnaires and interviews, and deciding the duration of the interviews or the interval between data collection times (Wang, et al., 2017). The researcher will also seek opinions on the actions the business executives can take to accelerate business recovery and build resilience against similar calamities in the future. To this extent, the researcher’s interferences may be in the interpretation process from the minimal interaction with the study participants, which if done diligently, will reduce bias and deliver credible and actionable results and information (Wang, et al., 2017). 

Q2c

The study will be conducted in a non-contrived setting, which is the natural environment in which the effects of the coronavirus pandemic are being experienced by business executives. Non-contrived settings allow the researcher to interfere with the study and its participants minimally (Rahi, 2017). Specifically, this setting is the business enterprises in which business executive perform their leadership and managerial duties. Enterprises are where the effects of the pandemic are being experienced naturally and where any strategies to revamp business and build its resilience will be instituted. These firms are encountering unprecedented challenges in the wake of covid-19 because their supply chains have been interrupted, purchases have plummeted, and customer delivery and service have been challenged by lack of sufficient personnel following layoffs (Nicola, 2020). Therefore, the business enterprise is a non-contrived setting in which the effects of the pandemic are ongoing, in a study that is considered to be a field study rather than a field experiment (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). The researcher’s intention of having a non-contrived setting is to obtain natural data from the participants. However, the researcher will not observe the business executive perform their duties in their natural setting, but rather collect data from them in a prearranged format and schedule. In this regard, while the researcher’s involvement in the formulation of the interview questions or questionnaire items will influence the responses of the business executives, delivering contrived data, this data can be naturalized to suit the purpose of analysis, which is to decipher the participant’s perceptions about the crisis ramifications in their organizations and device recovery and effective resilience-building strategies (Tileagă & Stokoe, 2015). In this regard, naturalized contrived data will be obtained from the non-contrived setting.   

Q2d

The time horizon for this study will be more than one point in time rather than one instance (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Therefore, the study will be longitudinal rather than cross-sectional. This means that data will be collected at different instances in the course of the field study rather that in one occasion. In this regard, the researcher will return severally to the field or participants, in this case, business executives, to collect data.

The reason for this preference is the ongoing nature of the phenomenon; the coronavirus pandemic. The effects of the pandemic are progressing and varying as the rate of infections fluctuates and as the mitigation measures against the spread of the virus are varied according to the severity of the infections, the infection’s spread rate, and the the effectiveness of the prevailing measures. In this regard, the researcher will need to collect data to capture the current situation of the pandemic’s impact and return to the field for more data as the situation changes, considering that the effects of the epidemic are expected to be long-lasting. In the same vein, the business recovery measures developed after the first dataset may yield different outcomes as the pandemic progresses. New business recovery strategies may need to be developed if the present ones are ineffective. Moreover, resilience building is an extended process that involves the implementation of mitigation measures, testing their effectiveness, adjusting them to fit the changing circumstances, and retesting their effectiveness until the desired level of resilience that captures all the possible circumstances of a similar crisis are attained.

A longitudinal study will require the first dataset when the lockdown measures are severest, another dataset when the crisis mitigation measures are eased, and another dataset when the restrictions are lifted, perhaps due to the discovery of a vaccine.

Q2e

The industry or business sector is the unit of analysis in this study. A unit of analysis frames the entity being studied or analyzed in the existing context of the phenomenon (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). In this regard, the unit of analysis is informed by the research question rather than the method of data collection used to answer the question (DeCarlo, 2018). In this case, the researcher wishes to identify the business challenges experienced by business executives across diverse business sectors. This is because business enterprises across different industries are being affected differently by the ongoing pandemic and its related crisis. For instance, manufacturers are lacking components from suppliers while retailers are deficient of merchandise from their suppliers to fill their shelves or are having excess but immobile inventory since sales have slumped. Therefore, every industry will experience challenges unique to it, although some experiences of the business executives may be crosscutting across different industries. Similarly, the recovery and resilience strategies developed by the business executive are peculiar for individual industries, although they may have crosscutting elements. Nonetheless, all the business executives across the diverse industries need to develop strategies for recovering from the pandemic’s impacts, and build resilience in the long term. In this regard, although the study will seek to help all business enterprises recover and build resilience for their survivability, different industry-related aspects of these measures will need to be unearthed to provide industry-specific actionable solutions. 

Q3

Q3a

Although China is performing well economically, and has exhibited monumental growth, thus becoming one of the emerging great power in the global scene, the same success has not been replicated in the sports field as the Chinese continue to underperform in team sports at the global stage. The Chinese partake in several team sports, including American football, basketball, soccer, cricket, volleyball, field hockey, ice hockey, and rugby, although only few of these teams participate at the regional or international stage (Hancock, 2018). China has traditionally performed better in individual sports, like gymnastics, speed skating, martial arts, which are very popular in the country. The only notable exemplary team sports performance in China has been volleyball, with the women’s team being the first to win a world championship in any team sport back in 1981, a fete it replicated five times in the world championship, in the 2004 Olympics in Athens and in 2019 during the world Cup held in Japan (Facts and Details, 2012). But similar performance is yet to be witnessed in other national team sports.

The decline in performance after the 2004 Olympics was attributed to ideological challenges and self-centeredness, as the team players spent more time over the internet that in interacting and bonding with each other (Facts and Details, 2012). Other challenges that have been associated with the underperformance in team sports, especially soccer and basketball, which are very popular in the country, include the lack of a talent nurturing program similar to that afforded to the athletes in individual sports, coupled with the lack of facilities and widespread grassroots participation (Davies, 2019). Moreover, although the countries leadership has promoted sports through investments and policy, the focus has been more on physical fitness rather that winning tournaments and competitions, and monetary gain (Hairong, 2019). In this regard, although the popularity of sports was increasing in the country, with many foreign sports, such as soccer, basketballs, cricket, and rugby, having been introduced recently, the Chinese prefer reveling team sports as spectators rather than participants, reasons why basketball and soccer have very large viewership in the country, amidst poor-performing professional and national teams (Hairong, 2019).

China is considered a latecomer in or late-adopter of popular foreign team sports, with the historical introduction of many of them being traced back only to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s under Mao Zedong, who encouraged the Chinese to embrace diverse sports for physical fitness (Hairong, 2019). Unfortunately, this has not given impetus to the development of professional sports teams in the country, with the existing ones having either emerged recently or been poorly managed. Besides, doping remains a challenge in the country’s sporting arena, while naturalization of talented sportspersons is a very recent phenomenon, whose benefits are yet to be realized (Davis, 2019). In a nutshell, despite the country having a dedicated sports agency in the name of the General Administration of Sport in China (GASC), having hosted numerous international competitions and tournaments, such as the Olympic Games in 2008, and more recently in 2019, the Seventh CISM Military World Games, having the impressive Beijing Sports University and the UFC Performance Institute of Shanghai, which is the largest center of its kind worldwide, and having ambitions to become a robust sports country by 2050, sports teams in the country continue to struggle and grapple with suboptimal performance (Davies, 2019; Hairong, 2019). In this regard, the issues facing Chinese team sports need to be investigated with a broad lens that focuses on both internal and internal aspects of team performance to facilitate the devising of solutions that can address poor performance effectively and sustainably.

Q3b

The general objective of the study will be to determine the factors responsible for the suboptimal performance of Chinese sports teams in international competitions

The three specific objectives of the study are:

1. To determine the controllable factors that hinder the performance of Chinese sports teams in international competitions.
2. To determine the uncontrollable factors that hinder the performance of Chinese sports teams in international competitions.
3. To identify the behavioral factors that hinder the performance of Chinese athletes in team sports during international competitions

The three research questions to be answered by this study are:

1. Why do Chinese sportspeople underperform in teams sports during international competitions?
2. What athlete controllable factors contribute to the poor performance of the Chinese sportspeople in team sports during international competitions?
3. What athlete uncontrollable factors contribute to the poor performance of the Chinese sportspeople in team sports during international competitions?

Q3c

Social network theory is applicable in this study because teams can be viewed as consisting of networked individual athletes who interact socially in a sports field. This theory views sports teams as complex social networks that experience interactional processes within and between teams, which influenced their performance in highly-competitive environments (Ribeiro, et al., 2017). According to the theory, actors are embedded in their networks, which influence their power and influence based in their access to information (Wäsche, et al., 2017). Therefore, this theory supports the conduct of a social network research and analysis on sports teams to help determine the complex and dynamic factors that influence their performance in highly-competitive sporting environments. In this regard, social network analysis investigates the position of teammates in a sports team as a network and the advantages and disadvantages they derive from these positions and the synergies they elicit, along with the roles the teammates play within and between teams, and their level of cohesion (Wäsche, et al., 2017). Moreover, since networks have a macrostructure that defines the relationship between the team and the sports organizations and ecosystem, and the microstructure that dictates the interaction patterns between teammates and that between opposing teams, social network analysis can help bridge the gap between these two structures to help understand the performance of the sports team (Ribeiro, et al., 2017).

Interactive team cognition theory is applicable because it considers team as being made up if individuals that exhibit certain behaviors during competitions based in the individual cognition of the team members. According to this theory, team cognition is characterized by interaction, which should be viewed within the context of the team and its interactional circumstance (Cookie, et al., 2013). In this regard, the cognition in a sports team is an activity rather than a product or property, which can be investigated and measured at the team level rather than at the individual team members’ one (Cooke, et al., 2013). Therefore, this theory can be used to explain sports team performance from a cognition perspective. Interactive team cognition theory is an ecological model that that focuses on the communication and coordination in a team that enables teams to marshal their collective cognition to execute an objective or goal physically in a competitive field (McNeese, et al., 2015). In this study, this theory will support the collection of data related to verbal communication and physical coordination patterns in a competitive game environment to help explain the performance of Chinese sports teams.    

Institutional theory is relevant in this study because it considers sports teams as organizations that seek to have organizational characteristics similar to those of the highly successful teams. The theory asserts that institutions exist within formal organizational structures that authoritatively guide social behavior (Hulme, et al., 2019). In this respect, sports teams are complex sociotechnical systems with multiple stakeholders that perform different functions, roles, and responsibilities. The sporting organizations within which the sports team exist and operate have several aspects that are related or not related to the actual sport that influence the performance of a team during competitions. Therefore, the exemplary performance of a sports team requires the smooth and coordinated functioning of all the stakeholders and sporting systems, and the efficient administration of the sporting fraternity, which if lacking, can lead to suboptimal performance (Hulme, et al., 2019). Beyond the specific aspects of team preparation by coaches and individual team member efforts, team sports also rely of sports managers, funders, spectators for management, financial sponsorship and fanatic support of the sports teams, before, during, and after participation in an elite sport competition (Hulme, et al., 2019). Therefore, this theory will help this study expand the sources of data collection beyond team members and coaches, to include sporting administrators, sponsors, and fans that have perceptions of why Chinese teams elicit suboptimal perform in international elite sporting competitions.

Q3d

The dependent variable in this study is the performance of team sports in international competitions. The performance of the Chinese sports teams is influenced by several internal and external variables, which are mediated and moderated by other variables.

The independent variables influencing the performance of Chinese sports teams are internal or external to the team, thus endogenous and exogenous variables, respectively. Specifically, endogenous or internal variables are those that are within the teams and their members, while exogenous or external variables are those that are outside the team and its members. Likewise, the endogenous variables include physical characteristics, mental or psychological status, behavioral characteristics, and team composition. Contrastingly, the exogenous factors include the conditions in the playing fields during international competition including location, weather, spectators, and diet.

Moderating variables include, coaching expertise, and organizational efficiency, while the mediating variables include international exposure, team cohesion, and team confidence. Figure 1 presents the schematic diagram for the theoretical concept of the study.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of for the theoretical concept of the study

Q3e

The directional and testable hypotheses in this study are:

1. The physical traits of the team members making up sports teams in China significantly influences their performance in international competitions
2. The mental preparedness of the team members making up sports teams in China significantly influences their performance in international competitions.
3. The behavioral characteristics of the team members making up sports teams in China significantly influenced their performance in international  competitions
4. The composition of sports teams in China significantly influenced their performance in international  competitions
5. The location of the international competitions significantly influences the performance of Chinese sports teams
6. The weather during the international competitions significantly influences the performance of Chinese sports teams
7. The performance of China’s team sports will be significantly influenced by the mental preparedness of the team members only after being trained by an experienced coach.
8. The performance of China’s team sports will be significantly influenced by the location of the international competitions when the sports teams have no international experience
9. The international exposure of sports teams significantly influences their performance in international competitions
10. The cohesion among sports team members significantly influences their performance in international competitions
11. The confidence of sports team members significantly influences their performance in international competitions

Q4

Q4a

The four philosophical paradigms are positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, and pragmatism.

Ontological foundations of a philosophical paradigm seek to explain the nature of reality and explain the researcher’s beliefs about reality. Realities can be singular or multiple depending on the beliefs of the researchers and participants. In turn, epistemological foundation of a philosophical paradigm underpins the creation of knowledge, the understanding of the truth of reality of that knowledge, how a researcher knows that that is the truth or reality. It dwells on explaining the process of acquiring and validating knowledge and the assumptions that a researcher holds regarding this process. Moreover, the methodological aspect of a philosophical paradigm deals with the processes of conducting a research. It dwells in the approach used to product data based on theoretical foundations. Therefore, it responds to issues about the type of data to be collected, the data collection tools, data analysis approaches, and the strategies of interpreting the data and drawing conclusions (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). In this regard, in a research, the researcher begin by answering the ontological questions before proceeding to answer the epistemological and methodological questions related to his or her study, while being guided by the research topic and questions. After understanding what reality is from his or her beliefs, the researcher then answers what and how would he or she know reality or knowledge before considering which tools to be used to acquire the desired knowledge. The beliefs of the researcher about a universal or multiple realties and the approaches of creating knowledge help decide the philosophical foundations to be used in a study.

Therefore, positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, and pragmatism are underpinned by specific ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies, which can be compared and contrasted. For instance, ontologically, positivists believe in a single reality or truth, while interpretivists believe that single reality of reality or truth is nonexistent, rather it is created by individuals and therefore have a multiple nature. Critical theorists believe that reality and truth is socially constructed by entities that are continuously being influenced internally, which pragmatists believe that reality and truth are under continuous negotiations, debate, and interpretations based on their situational and contextual usefulness. In this regard, while positivists view reality and truth as being singular, universal, and unchangeable, interpretivists, critical theorists, and pragmatists believe in multiple truths and realities because they are derived from diverse individuals with a wide variety of worldviews (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).

Epistemologically, positivism finds that reality and truth are measurable, while these are interpreted by interpretivists, to unearth the underlying meaning in the experiences. For critical theorists, the socially-constructed reality and knowledge are influenced by the societal power relations, while for the pragmatists, the reality and knowledge focuses on problem solving using the best methods that can deliver the desired change (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).  

Methodologically, positivists use experimental research to unearth the cause and effect of a phenomenon by manipulating variables in controlled conditions, such as a laboratory, while interpretivists seek to understand a phenomenon from the experiences of the actors in their natural setting. In this regard, positivists use a qualitative methodology while interpretivists use a qualitative one. In turn, critical theories and pragmatists find the application of both qualitative and quantitative research applicable in delivering results that can induce change, although pragmatists seek for the best methodology for problem-solving, while critical theorists use a methodology that can help deliver social change and addresses oppression and other politically-charged challenges. In this respect, while positivists advocate for quantitative approaches and interpretivists for qualitative approaches, critical theorists and pragmatists use the mixed methods approach with differing proportions of qualitative and quantitative approaches (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).

Q4b

Volunteers lower the population and external validity of a research and its findings. Volunteer sampling overpopulates the sample with individuals that are interested in the study, which may misrepresent the constitution and variability in the target population (Brownell, et al., 2013). Despite volunteers participating in a study willingly, thus reducing the chances of participants exiting the study before it is complete or delivering incomplete data, they introduce self-selection bias into the sample. This is because they are often aware of the nature and intentions of the study, which is congruent to their interests (Brownell, et al., 2013). The volunteers may also exhibit the Hawthorne effect by changing their behavior or responses because they are aware that they are being observed or studied (Brownell, et al., 2013). Usually, volunteers are highly-education and exhibit an interest in the study, and therefore likely to feel the urge to air their perceptions and opinions about the topic of study (Tiefenbeck, et al., 2019). Consequently, data obtained and findings interpreted from this data cannot be generalized to the target population or the entire population that experiences the phenomenon being studied. Such findings lose external and population validity because the volunteers are not representative of the population. However, this biases are enlarge when a small sample of volunteers are used, and therefore can be reduced by increasing the number of volunteers (Tiefenbeck, et al., 2019). They also occur more commonly in the online surveys where participant recruitment is broadcasted using a link to a questionnaire requesting volunteers to opt in (Tiefenbeck, et al., 2019).  

Q4c

Studies can have good internal validity because the quality of the results is a reflection of how well the study was conducted. However, they may lack external validity if the results are not relatable to the real world context. Studies that seek to understand a phenomenon and its variables without regard whether the findings can be generalized to the population will have good internal validity at the expense of external validity (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).

A situation that could enhance internal validity at the expense of external validity is the use of nonprobability sampling in an experimental research. The participants to receive a variation of variables and those to serve as the control may be purposively or conveniently sampled to diminish the risk of exiting the study before it is complete. While the study using such as sample may be methodologically sound in the experimental manipulation of the variables, it may suffer from selection bias, which undermines the external validity. Scientific qualitative studies that are conducted in a laboratory are a common example of heightened internal validity but diminished external validity, because the findings cannot be extrapolated to the entire population represented by the subjects (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). In this case, even attempts to blind the study may not eradicate the bias introduced in the sample by the nonprobability sampling approach.  

Q4d

The elements required for informed consent with human participants revolve around disclosure of the study related issues. First, the participants should be provided with the description of the study and the procedures to be used. Second, the participants should be furnished with the role they would play in the study and the risks of participation. Third, the participants should be informed of the expected benefits of the study to the researcher, the participant, and society. Fourth, the participants need the assurance that their participation is voluntary and that they may exist the study whenever they wish. Fifth, the participants should be assured of confidentiality of their identities and the information they divulge (Shah, et al., 2020). These elements should be documented and signed by the participant and researcher to demonstrate good faith and fidelity to ethical research.  

Q4e

 A researcher who believes that language delays cause problem behaviors is making a Type II error. A type II error occurs when the researcher fails to reject a false null hypothesis by concluding that there lacks a significant effect between two variables, when the effect is significant or vice versa (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). In other words, the alternative hypothesis is true but is not accepted as such. This kind of error is known as a false negative or beta (β). In this regard, the null hypothesis would be that language delays do not significantly cause problem behaviors, while the alternative hypothesis would be that language delays significantly cause problem behaviors. For the null hypothesis to be rejected and the alternative one to be accepted instead, the correlation between language delays and problem behaviors must be positive and significant, as may have been determined by the data analysis. However, since the correlation between the two variables is positive, the significance of the correlation needs to be determined before the null and alternative hypotheses are rejected and accepted, respectively. However, if the researcher moves on to reject or accept the null and alternative hypothesis respectively before confirming the significance of the correlation, a type II error will have been made.

Q5

Table 1

The questionnaire return rate or response rate is given by the proportion of the total questionnaires that were administered were returned. The return rate is expressed as a percentage of the total number of questionnaires distributed to the participants. In this regard, 389 returned questionnaires are divided by 750, which is the total number of administered questionnaires, expressed as a percentage. In this case, 389/750 % is 51.7 %. A response rate of 60 % is acceptable for publishing results in academic journals, while 80 % acceptable in medical schools. However, response rates of 30 % and below are considered low. In this case, the response rate is passable in a social research study although it will not be acceptable for publishing purposes or in medical studies. Moreover, the findings from these questionnaires are likely to be biased because they may not reflect the target population, which needs to be confirmed during analysis.  

Incomplete questionnaires are those with missing responses in some of items. In this case, the incomplete questionnaires are 23, meaning that they have one or more items without participants’ responses. The cause if this incompleteness may be missing item or unit responses, which should not be ignored but analyzed instead to unearth the validity of the questionnaire and its results, alongside identifying the type of error in the results. The nonresponse rate of these questionnaires is the proportion of the incomplete questionnaires to the complete ones, expressed as a percentage. In this case, it is 23/389 %, which is 5.1 %. Therefore, the findings from these questionnaires are likely to have nonresponse bias. However, this bias is unlikely to affect the validity of the results when the standard requirement for nonresponse analysis is less than 70 % item response rate.     

Table 2

This table presents the reliability of different measures of organizational aspects influencing performance as determined from a piloted questionnaire. Reliability is measured using Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Specifically, this coefficient measures the internal consistency reliability of a Likert scale in a questionnaire The variables measured ranged from 5-30, and their corresponding Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were higher than 0.7, meaning the items used for their measurement were internally consistent. The items that measured variables and yielded an alpha coefficient of 0.9 and above had a very high internal consistency and therefore, very reliable.

Figure 1

This table presents a research framework of a study delving into the individual factors that influence organizational performance. These individual factors are represented by two sets of independent variable while organizational performance in the dependent variable in the study. The independent variables are divided into demographic characteristics and personal and psychological characteristics. Adoption of proactive environmental strategy is a mediating variable while organizational culture is a moderating variable.

This study has 14 hypotheses that will help determine the extent to which the independent variables influence the dependent variable based in the research framework. In other words, the 14 hypothesis assess the significant influence that individual characteristics influence organizational performance. These are H1-H14, which are stated as

1. H1: the age of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy
2. H2: the level of education of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy
3. H3: the career experience of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy
4. H4: the environmental attitude of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy
5. H5: the environmental knowledge of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy
6. H6: the change orientation of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy
7. H7: the adoption of proactive environmental strategy does not significantly influence organizational performance

Another set of hypotheses incorporate the mediating variable (adoption of proactive environmental strategies) into the relationship between the individual characteristics of employees and organizational performance. These hypotheses include H8-H13.

• H8: the age of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy, which in turn, does not significantly influence organizational performance.
• H9: the level of education of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy, which in turn, does not significantly influence organizational performance.
• H10: the career experience of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy, which in turn, does not significantly influence organizational performance.
• H11: the environmental attitude of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy, which in turn, does not significantly influence organizational performance.
• H12: the environmental knowledge of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy, which in turn, does not significantly influence organizational performance.
• H13: the change orientation of employees does not significantly influence the adoption of proactive environmental strategy, which in turn, does not significantly influence organizational performance.

Finally, the last hypothesis introduced the moderating variable of organizational culture into the relationship between adoption of proactive environmental strategy and organizational performance.

• H14: Adoption of proactive environmental strategy will not significantly influence organizational performance unless it is mediated by organizational culture

Figure 2

This figure presents a conceptual framework of a study aiming at determining the effect of personal traits or characteristics on organizational performance and how they are moderated by organizational culture. Organizational performance in the dependent variable while personal attributed are the independent variables and organizational culture is the moderating variable. The study has six independent variables comprising sentiment, mysticism, self, goal-orientation, self-talk, and intrinsic drive.

In turn, seven null hypotheses can be developed from this conceptual framework

1. Ho1: The sentiments of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance.
2. Ho2: the mysticism of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance.
3. Ho3: the self-perception of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance.
4. Ho4: the goal orientation of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance.
5. Ho5: self-talk by of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance.
6. Ho6: the intrinsic drive of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance.

However, each of these personal characteristics is mediated by organizational culture to influence organizational performance. Therefore, the organizational culture is a function of personal characteristics or tendencies and its helps the understanding of the effect of personal characteristics on the performance of an organization. To include the mediating variable, six mediating hypotheses can be formulated. These are:    

1. H7a: The intrinsic drive of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance when not mediated by organizational culture
2. H7b: The self-talk of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance when not mediated by organizational culture
3. H7c: The goal orientation of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance when not mediated by organizational culture
4. H7d: The self-perception of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance when not mediated by organizational culture
5. H7e: The mysticism of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance when not mediated by organizational culture
6. H7f: The sentiments of employees will not significantly influence the organizational performance when not mediated by organizational culture

References

Acheampong, E. Y., Akwaa-Sekyi, E. K., Bouhaouala, M., & Saether, S. A. (2019). How does team composition affect performance in continental tournaments? Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1606133. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1606133.

Bolarinwa, O. A. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195-201. https://doi.org/10.4103/1117-1936.173959.

Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2013). Context matters: volunteer bias, small sample size, and the value of comparison groups in the assessment of research-based undergraduate introductory biology lab courses. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education: JMBE, 14(2), 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.609.

Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D., & Baharum, N. A. (2018). A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(6), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9.

Cohen, S. E., Hooper, S. R., Javalkar, K., Haberman, C., Fenton, N., Lai, H., … & Medeiros, M. (2015). Self-management and transition readiness assessment: concurrent, predictive and discriminant validation of the STARx questionnaire. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 30(5), 668-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.05.006.

Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009.

Davis, K. (2019). China’s year in sports in 7 words. Retrieved from https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1004981/chinas-year-in-sports-in-7-words.

DeCarlo, M. (2018). Scientific inquiry in social work. Pressbooks. Retrieved from https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/

Facts and Details (2012). Team sports in China. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat12/sub78/item279.html.

Hairong, W. (2019). Ahead of the game: China launched drive to develop sports and improve people’s health. Retrieved from http://www.bjreview.com/Current_Issue/Editor_Choice/201911/t20191102_800183552.html.

Hancock, T. (2018). China esports victory points to a lofty ambitions in nascent sector. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/ba9bf024-dcf0-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c.

Hulme, A., McLean, S., Read, G. J. M., Dallat, C., Bedford, A., & Salmon, P. M. (2019). Sports organisations as complex systems: using Cognitive Work Analysis to identify the factors influencing performance in an elite Netball organisation. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 1, 56-68. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2019.00056.

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324-327. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306.

McNeese, N. J., Cooke, N. J., Fedele, M. A., & Gray, R. (2015). Theoretical and methodical approaches to studying team cognition in sports. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1211-1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.201.

Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2015). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.129.

Morley, J. (2014). Academic phrasebank. Manchester: University of Manchester.

Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., … & Agha, R. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. International Journal of Surgery, 78, 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018.

Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000403.

Ratten, V. (2020). Coronavirus and international business: An entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(5), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22161.

Ribeiro, J., Silva, P., Duarte, R., Davids, K., & Garganta, J. (2017). Team sports performance analysed through the lens of social network theory: implications for research and practice. Sports Medicine, 47(9), 1689-1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0695-1.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Shah, P., Thornton, I., Turrin, D., & Hipskind, J. E. (2020). Informed consent. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/#:~:text=The%20Joint%20Commission%20requires%20documentation,and%20the%20procedure%2C%20(3).

Tiefenbeck, V., Wörner, A., Schöb, S., Fleisch, E., & Staake, T. (2019). Real-time feedback promotes energy conservation in the absence of volunteer selection bias and monetary incentives. Nature Energy, 4(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0282-1.

Tileagă, C., & Stokoe, E. (2015). Discursive psychology: Classic and contemporary issues. Routledge.

Vandenbussche, L., Edelenbos, J., & Eshuis, J. (2019). Coming to grips with life-as-experienced: piecing together research to study Stakeholders’ lived relational experiences in collaborative planning processes. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 20, No. 1). http://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.1.3097.

Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw033.

Wäsche, H., Dickson, G., Woll, A., & Brandes, U. (2017). Social network analysis in sport research: an emerging paradigm. European Journal for Sport and Society, 14(2), 138-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2017.1318198.

Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar, A. R. (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017.