The Research Rigor

  • Sandhya Shekhar
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


Once the factors affecting knowledge transfer success and performance in VOs are identified, it is important to understand the nature of the impact of each of these factors on the outcomes. This is best achieved through in-depth research so that inferences can be drawn based on an analysis of actual data. The data need to be gathered and analyzed with care and precision so that one does not arrive at pre-mature conclusions and erroneous generalizations that may not be right all the time. This can be ensured by adhering to the required rigor in research.

This chapter discusses the methodology used for conducting this research. It begins by describing the research design and the justification for the approach selected. This is followed by a discussion on the instrument design. It then discusses the scales used in the research model and procedures for fine-tuning the instrument using pre-test and pilot studies. What follows next is a description of the research sites and rationale for their selection, issues relating to data collection highlighting elements of its execution and the sample profile. It describes the procedures used to establish reliability and validity of the scales and ends with an overview of the statistical techniques used for analysis of all the research data.


Confirmatory Factor Analysis Discriminant Validity Convergent Validity Research Model Knowledge Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Silverman D (2000) Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. Sage, London/Thousand Oaks/New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) Discovery of grounded theory: the strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Vaus D (2002) Surveys in social research, 4th edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keppel G, Zedeck S (1989) Data analysis for research designs: analysis of variance and multiple regression/correlation approaches. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2003) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River (Reprint)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson JC, Gerbing D (1991) Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. J Appl Psychol 76:732–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nunnally JC (1998) Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venkataraman N (1989) Strategic orientation of business enterprises: the construct, dimensionality and measurement. Manag Sci 35(8):942–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahire SL, Golhar DY, Waller MA (1996) Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decis Sci 27:23–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byrne J (1994) Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/windows – basic concepts, applications and programming. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peter JP (1979) Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J Mark Res 16:6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Churchill GAJ (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bagozzi RP (1980) Causal models in marketing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook TD, Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton-Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bohrnstedt G (1983) Measurement. In: Rossi P, Wright J, Anderson A (eds) A hand book of survey research. Academy Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaplan RM, Sacuzzo DP (1993) Psychological testing: principles, applications and issues, 3rd edn. Brooks Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88(3):588–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation model. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lipnack J, Stamps J (1997) Virtual teams. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Contractor FJ, Ra W (2002) How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices: a theory development note. J Int Manag 8:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prasad K, Akhilesh KB (2002) Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and performance. Team Perform Manag Int J 8(5/6):102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rad PF, Levin G (2003) Achieving project management success using virtual teams. J. Ross Publishing Inc., Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(10):27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bauer R, Köszegi ST (2003) Measuring the degree of virtualization. Electron J Organ Virtual 5(2):22–46Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Syed-lkhsan SOS, Rowland F (2004) Knowledge management in a public organization: a study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer. J Knowl Manag 8:96–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gray PH, Meister DB (2004) Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Manag Sci 50(6):821–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campion MA, Papper EM, Medsker GJ (1996) Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Pers Psychol 49(2):429–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kogut B, Zander U (1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. J Int Bus Stud 24(Fourth Quart):625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cummings JL, Teng BS (2003) Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. J Eng Technol Manag 20:39–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goodhue DL (1998) Development and measurement validity of a task technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information systems. Decis Sci 29(1):105–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Staples DS, Hulland JS, Higgins CA (1999) A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):758–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandhya Shekhar
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge and Innovation StrategiesChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations