Business and Management Research Methods - Assignment Example

? Business and Management Research Methods Part1: Evaluating Published Research Number School Word Count Part1: Evaluating Published Research “Online Shopping Behavior: Key Dimensions and Research Synthesis” The article published in the Contemporary Management Research in 2006 was written by four authors: Dong Shen, Craig Kelly, Joseph Richards and Claudia Bridges, all from the California State University in Sacramento, California. The research focused on identifying crucial media factors that influence consumer behavior on online shopping. The four key dimensions that were evaluated as impinging on online shopping behavior, vis-a-vis traditional shopping behavior are: “informativeness, convenience, customer service, and experiential uniqueness” (Shen, et.al, 2006, 3). The purpose of this essay is to review and summarize the article, and to include some definitions and preferably challenging research questions in the field. Likewise, the discourse would comply with the requirement of critically reviewing the paper by evaluating its weaknesses and strengths. Finally, suggested ways and opportunities for improving the paper would be presented after a comprehensive analytical and critical reflection is undertaken, as required. Summary of Relevant Details The authors recognized the increasing number of literatures written on the subject of online shopping and acknowledged three clearly defined purposes, to wit: (1) to identify and review current available research studies on online shopping related to media factors influencing buyer behavior and to pinpoint critical dimensions that emerge from these studies; (2) to evaluate and compare the key dimensions on online shopping behavior vis-a-vis traditional shopping channel behavior; and (3) to suggest future thrusts for research on online shopping using the information gathered. The research presented a table which summarized the current online literatures using the four dimensions abovementioned. There were a total of 63 secondary sources of literatures that were reviewed, analyzed and categorized according to dimensions noted. Shen, et.al. (2006) likewise proffered definitions for the four key dimensions prior to delving into a more comprehensive assessment of its comparative perspectives in contrast with studies made and published focusing on the traditional channel. The four key dimensions were discussed after the tabular presentation of summarized online literatures. The informativeness dimension was defined as an online category of consumer behavior that focuses on elements of “information relevancy, information accuracy, information comprehensiveness, and information interactivity” (Shen, et.al, 2006, 6). Each distinct variable was explained using various literatures on the subject. The manner by which information comprehensiveness, for instance, was proffered initially indicate that “information comprehensiveness is a measure of the amount of information furnished by the channel. Consumers expect a certain level of information, and when the information provided by the Web approaches this level, information comprehensiveness is enhanced” (ibid.). The theoretical framework used to explain customer service dimension presented two distinct studies conducted by Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) and Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Malhotra (2002) which identified customer service in terms of scales or levels. Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) clearly distinguished variables of reliability/fulfillment, as contrasted to security/privacy, as essential factors to ensure the effective delivery of products and services parallel to according satisfaction. The difference in presentation of data from the research study written by Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Malhotra (2002) falls into the manner by which security and privacy were treated as separate concepts of customer service. The delivery of products is another element taken into account under this dimension. The convenience dimension was presented by the authors by citing it as including “the opportunity to search and compare a large number of alternatives at a relatively low search cost (Alba et al., 1997) and eliminates frustrating encounters such as traffic, lack of parking, avoidance of checkout lines and travel to and from various stores (Childers, Carr, Peck, & Carson, 2001)” (Shen, et.al, 2006, 8). Finally, as the term implies, the experiential uniqueness dimension centers on the distinctive element of highlighting the Web as an exceptional alternative medium for shopping. Findings reveal that “similarities and differences between the online shopping literature and traditional channel literature regarding those four dimensions” (Shen, et.al, 2006, 12). The authors acknowledge the value of their research in terms of providing the conceptual and comparative framework for available research conducted on both online shopping and the traditional shopping channel. With underlying similarities and differences found in the dimensions noted, the authors revealed the need to for further research that could focus on the characteristics and profile of online shoppers to enable marketers to design appropriate strategies for product or service promotions online. Further, future studies could incorporate relevant issues that would address online security and privacy, as required. Critical Analysis The article was effective in achieving its clearly defined objectives. Through the use of varied and authoritative secondary sources on the subject, the authors were able to present an objective perspective of online shopping, per se, and as contrasted and compared to the traditional shopping channel. The structure and format was well-defined through the use of sub-headings and tabular presentation of summarized online literatures. Likewise, by using varied and substantial amount of secondary and authoritative sources on the subject, the credibility of the findings is increased. Majority of the sources were also recent in publication date which enhanced the veracity of the results. However, there was eminent weakness in the use of some sources which were outdated (more than 10 years from the date of their research – 2006). The oldest reference was dated 1980 and 1986, respectively, whose applicability of findings could very well be passe. Further, although the online literatures were summarized, studies on traditional channel literature focusing on the four dimensions were not clearly delineated. The concluding portion which discussed the findings was presented in a generalized manner which failed to focus on distinct differences and similarities of each dimension when compared the traditional channel was contrasted with online shopping approach. There were no sub-headings that could highlight areas such as limitations of the study, and implications for future research, aside from the findings, per se. Suggestions and Recommendations To improve the presentation of results, in addition to the tabular summary of current online literature, a summary of traditional channel literature could have been made, also in tabular form. Likewise, the comparative results of the online channel literature versus the traditional channel literature according to the four dimensions could have been made clearer if summarized in another table to highlight the similarities and differences, as needed. Further, outdated references should not have been used. The study should focus on authoritative and recently published sources to support the validity and credit worthiness of the findings. References Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., & Janiszewski, C. (1997). “Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces.” Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 38-54. Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior.” Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 511-535. Shen, D., Kelly, C.A., Richards, J. & Bridges, C. (2006). “Online Shopping Behavior: Key Dimensions and Research Synthesis.” Contemporary Management Research, Vol.2, No. 1, pp. 3 – 16. Wolfinbarger, M. & Gilly, M. C. (2003). “eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality.” Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). “Service quality delivery through Web sites: A critical review of extant knowledge.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 362-375. Read More