MKT403 MODULE 2 CASE

profilekenyati

Module 3 - Case

PERFORM THE RESEARCH

Case Assignment

The Situation

It is argued that perceptions of service quality vary across cultural groups, as defined by each culture's position on Hofstede's dimensions. The relationship is explicitly mapped between service quality perceptions and cultural dimension positions and the implications drawn for international service market segmentation. The hypotheses constituting their theoretical analysis are also tested. It is shown that the importance of SERVQUAL dimensions is correlated with Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Correlation coefficients are also used to compute a Cultural Service Quality Index that could be used to segment international service markets and allocate resources across segments.

Case Resource

Furrer, Olivier; Shaw-Ching, Ben; & Sudharshan (2000). The Relationships between Culture and Service Quality Perceptions: Basis for Cross-Cultural Market Segmentation and Resource Allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2:4:(May):355-72. Available November 30, 2012 via EBSCO

Upload your 4-6 page paper by the module deadline.

Assignment Expectations

In preparing CASE3, that is, in preparing your analysis of Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000), ensure that you demonstrate your learning of the marketing research concepts and frameworks for analysis outlined as follows:

Evaluate a Questionnaire

Describe the tradeoffs that need to be made between research design, cost, project implementability, and expected results

Problem? What is the driving force or main purpose behind this article? Is the problem important (yes or no)? Why was this article written? Defend your positions on all of these issues.

Central hypothesis? What is the main proposition that the author is trying to express/explore? Is your (the central) hypothesis best classified as descriptive, explanatory, or predictive/causal? Does the main hypothesis call for a measure of association or a measure of difference between two variables? What is the theoretical basis of your (the central) hypothesis? Does this hypothesis logically flow from and relate to the theorized constructs and relationships presented as the basis for the research or was it picked out of thin air? Defend your positions on all of these issues.

Research design? Is the study and experiment, a quasi-experiment, or a correlation? Defend your position on this issue

Construct Validity? In your (the central) hypothesis, look for a description of how the cause (that is, the independent (or predictor variable(s)) and the effect (that is, the dependent (or criterion variable(s)) are being measured. Face Validity: Do the measures measure what they are supposed to measure? Internal reliability: Are the measures reliable? What level of measurement is applied to these variables (for example, for each, identify if they are nominal, ordinal, scalar). What is the unit of analysis (for example, is it individual, group, corporate, societal)? Does the unit of analysis match between variables? Defend your positions on all of these issues.

External Validity? Was a sample drawn? If so, how was it drawn? Was it a large, randomly drawn sample? Did it consist of multiple cases? Are the conclusions drawn from one specific instance? Or, was sampling not done, at all? Defend your positions on all of these issues.

Internal Validity? How was the data collected? Was the data collection procedure unacceptable, acceptable, or superior - or - poor, average, or outstanding? Defend your position and offer suggestions for how data collection procedure(s) might be improved (if improvement is needed). In particular, how could the questionnaire have been improved? Defend your positions on all of these issues.

Conclusion Validity (Or Statistical Conclusion Validity)? Was there any statistical or qualitative analysis to support your (the central) hypothesis? Identify the descriptive and analytic statistics used in the study. Did the descriptive statistics measure and did the analytic statistics test for differences or relationships? Were the statistical methods used in the study appropriate? Defend your positions on all of these issues.

Note that, in terms of internal validity, as part and parcel of the evaluation, you are to revise Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000) questionnaire. Click on Hofstede.doc to access the version of Hofstede’s basic questionnaire on cultural dimensions, used in Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000).

The questionnaire should be fairly easy to correct. There are problems with almost all of the questions in this survey. There are so many problems with the questionnaire that you will be hard-pressed to find an acceptable item.

In revising the questionnaire, explain what you see as problematical and what changes you would recommend to improve its quality and ability to gather good data. DO NOT state that an item needs to be changed; show both the original version of the item and your revised version of that item.

In terms of your revisions, explain why you made the revisions you are making.

DO NOT state that an item needs to be changed. Instead, revise the item. Using a table similar to the Table 3.1, show both the original version of the item and your revised version of that item. Then explain why you made the change you made. That is comment on the questions (e.g. original question used 'and' or 'or;' thereby collapsing two questions into a single question.)

To insure that you are concise in your explanation on how the questionnaire by Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000) can be improved, you should Copy/Paste Table 3.1, below, into CASE3 when you describe the internal validity of the questionnaire used by Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000).

Table 3.1: Evaluation of the Hofstede Questionnaire

Original Question

Revised Question(s)

Reason for the Revision

All items in the original questionnaire use a 6-point Likert Scale varying from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

  

Inequalities among people are both expected and desired.

 

1(a). To what degree are inequalities expected in your society? (Never...Frequently)

1(b). To what degree are inequalities desired in your society? (Not desired…Very Desired)

Separating the question into two questions simplifies confusion with the original item due to having ‘and’ in the scale. ‘And’ means that the researcher does not knowthe question answered. Using a scale anchored at one end is easier to use that the Likert scale centered at neither agree nor disagree.

Less powerful people should be dependent on the more power­ful.

 

  

Inequalities among people should be minimized. (R)

 

  

There should be, and there are to some extent, interdependencies between less and more powerful people. (R)

 

  

Everyone grows up to look after himself or herself and his or
her immediate family only.

 

  

People are identified independently of the groups they belong to.

 

  

Other members, in exchange for loyalty, should protect an extended family member (R)

 

  

People are identified by their position in the social networks to which they belong. (R)

 

  

Money and material things are important.

 

  

Men are supposed to be assertive, ambitious, and tough.

 

  

The dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation. (R)

 

  

Both men and

women are allowed to be tender and concerned with relationships. (R)

 

  

High stress and subjective feeling of anxiety are frequent among people.

 

  

Fear of ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks is normal.

 

  

Uncertainty is a normal feature of life, and each day is accepted as it comes. (R)

 

  

Emotions should not be shown. (R)

 

  

Willingness to subordinate oneself for a purpose is normal.

 

  

People should be perseverant toward long-term results.

 

  

Traditions should be respected. (R)

 

  

Social obligations should be respected regardless of cost.

(R)

  

 

In addition to revising the questionnaire, comment on the questionnaire (e.g., ease of use, layout and format, and user-friendliness).

Note that this assignment does NOT require you to prepare a detailed essay. Instead use section headings for each of the topics you address in your paper followed by a discussion of that topic.

    • 10 years ago
    • 20
    Answer(1)

    Purchase the answer to view it

    blurred-text
    NOT RATED
    • attachment
      problem.docx