Your task is to analyze the way the authors formulate their research problem, using Van de Ven (2007). In particular, you can draw upon chapter 3 in your analysis. Also state an argument whether you approve to the way the authors formulated their research problem or not. Your discussion should be no longer than 500 words.
2. Exam assignment qualitative methods
Based on the methods literature and your own experience with working with qualitative data and analysis, discuss the benefits and drawbacks of qualitative data analysis and coding according to the proposed ”Gioia method” (as for instance discussed in the Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2013, paper). Discuss the following (Maximum 750 words total):
a) What are the main opportunities provided by the Gioia method for coding and analyzing qualitative data in the social sciences? What are the main benefits of this approach compared to other means of analyzing and coding qualitative data? Draw on the Gioia paper but also other methods literature to argue for this approach.
b) What are the major drawbacks of this approach to analyzing and coding qualitative data? Reference methods literature to argue for your answer.
3. Exam assignment quantitative methods
For the quantitative part of the exam, you are tasked with evaluating the methods section found below. Please remember to take into account the different themes covered in the three quantitative sessions when evaluating the data and methods, and answering the questions.
1. Comment on the values related to exploring the data, reliability and construct validity, and the regression analysis. Are they OK and if so why, and are there some values that are more questionable, and if so explain why? (25 credits) (maximum 500 words)
2. Have we carried out all the necessary tests for a rigorous analysis? Do you miss some tests that you would add, and if so why and what would they add? (10 credits) (maximum 250 words)
3. Interpret the results vis-à-vis our hypotheses. (5 credits) (maximum 250 words)
H1: Greater headquarters involvement in the development of an innovation will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H2: Greater use of formal hierarchical governance tools by headquarters in the innovation transfer process will negatively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H3: Greater use of expatriates from the sending subsidiary to the receiving subsidiary during the transfer will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H4: An established relationship between the sending and receiving subsidiaries will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H5: Relationship building between the sending and receiving subsidiary will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness.
DATA AND METHODS
The data used in this research was collected between 2002 and 2005 and covers 169 intra
MNE innovation transfer projects in great detail. Innovations in subsidiaries were identified
through snowball sampling, which is appropriate when the population is difficult to define
and no comprehensive listing exists (Hair et al., 2006). The data can be traced back to 72
innovation development projects hosted by 63 subsidiaries belonging to 23 different MNEs
headquartered in the US and Europe. The sending subsidiaries span 14 countries and the
receivers 31 countries.1 Different industries are represented in the sample, for example,
manufacturing, telecommunications, transportation, and the steel industry. The innovation
selection criterion was based on the novelty and specific value to the organization.