ARA Research

Portfolio Assignment Example LW3

(Keep in mind this is just an example, you can use your own style)

The portfolio should contain these elements:

1. The sources you chose

2. Why you think these sources are of good quality (using the CARS framework)

3. An evaluation of cognitive biases found in the source

4. The sources written down in proper APA style

Research Problem

Investigating what Unilever’s strategy will be with dealing with Brexit.

Source 1

Source: Kollewe (2018)

Quality

Credentials: The guardian is a well-known reputable newspaper, although it does have a reputation of being somewhat left-winged. The author has a history of working for several different newspapers so she must have experience in reporting facts.

Accuracy: The information is very recent and directly relevant. However, the article is relatively short so might not provide in-depth information

Reasonablness: The Guardian is a left-winged newspaper so there might be bias, especially when it concerns big companies. However, the article is not an opinion piece so bias might be minimal.

Support: Unfortunately, the article does not mention many sources. However, this story is reported by other newspapers as well which give it support

Source 2

Source: Marketline (2016)

Credentials: Marketline is known to be a high-quality research agency and, even though the exact author is unknown, we can assume that the information is factual. Marketline also especially prides itself on its strict research methodology

Accuracy: The article is a bit old (2 years) and not specifically about Unilever. However, it does provide good background information to the research problem

Reasonableness: The report is not an opinion article and there is no big reason to assume that it is biased

Support: Unfortunately the article mentions no sources although it does mention the names of the people who made the quotes.

Source 3

Source: Daily the Pak Banker (2018)

Credentials: The author of this article is unknown. However, the newspaper belongs to a large institute in Pakistan which probably means they would not quickly release low quality information

Accuracy: The information is very relevant and very recent

Reasonableness: There could be a bias but this is unclear

Support: No sources are mentioned in the article, but the story could be found on other places in Lexisnexus as well meaning it can be confirmed by several sources.

Cognitive Bias

Source used: Kollewe (2018)

Possible Cognitive Biases found

1. Anchoring bias: much of the article seems to be based on other articles from the Guardian, which in turn are based on official statements made by Unilever. Thus the original data is given a lot of importance.

2. Overconfidence bias: many of the sources mentioned are other Guardian articles, which seems to suggest that they put a lot of faith in themselves.

3. Confirmation bias: all of the sources support the viewpoint that Brexit and the Unilever headquarter move are unrelated, none oppose this viewpoint even though opposing viewpoints do exist

Reference List

Daily the Pak Banker (2018). Unilever picks Rotterdam for HQ as Britain loses the battle before Brexit? Retrieved from Lexisnexus database.

Kollewe, J. (2018, March 15). Unilever picks Rotterdam as sole HQ but denies Brexit link.

The Guardian. Retrieved September 9, 2019 from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/15/unilever-brexit- rotterdam-hq-london

Marketline (2016). Brexit: Its effect on Inflation. Retrieved from Marketline Advantage Database.

APPENDICES

CARS FRAMEWORK – RESEARCH 1 CLASS 3

Source used:

· (Wenzel, Mahle, & Pätzmann, Jens U, 2016) EconStor: Streaming Services & Service Design: An Analysis of Netflix and Amazon Video Based on the Gap Model by Parasuraman, Berry & Zeithaml Retrieved November 23, 2020, from Stcproxy.han.nl website.

· Amazon Prime Dominating: Primes revenue streams key to their success. (2020). Retrieved November 23, 2020, from Stcproxy.han.nl website: http://stcproxy.han.nl/han/MarketLineadvantage/https/advantage.marketline.com/Analysis/ViewasPDF/amazon-prime-dominating-77038  

· ‌Video Streaming Wars - New global players challenging Netflix and Amazon will disrupt business models. (2020). Retrieved November 23, 2020, from Stcproxy.han.nl website: http://stcproxy.han.nl/han/MarketLineadvantage/https/advantage.marketline.com/Analysis/ViewasPDF/video-streaming-wars---new-global-players-challenging-netflix-and-amazon-will-disrupt-business-models-110275

· MarketLine Analyst Insight. (April 2018). Netflix: Online streaming giant set to achieve global domination. (MarketLine Report). Eleanor Uttley. Retrieved November 23, 2020, from: http://stcproxy.han.nl/han/MarketLineadvantage/https/advantage.marketline.com/Analysis/ViewasPDF/netflix-62882

· MarketLine Analyst Insight. (March 2017). Netflix competition: Not a chill environment. (MarketLine Report). Paul Todd. Retrieved November 23, 2020, from: http://stcproxy.han.nl/han/MarketLineadvantage/https/advantage.marketline.com/Analysis/ViewasPDF/netflix-competition-not-a-chill-environment-46634

· MarketLine Case Study. (February 2014). Netflix: Can it sustain its success? (MarketLine Report). Retrieved November 23, 2020, from: http://stcproxy.han.nl/han/marketlineadvantage/https/advantage.marketline.com/Analysis/details/netflix-inc-can-it-sustain-its-success-26556

Source 1:

Credentials: The article was written by many authors and they all expert in Marketing from Neu-Ulm University of Applied Science. The authors’ research mainly focus on corporate, employer and internal branding.

Accuracy: The information is relevant but might not provide up-to-date data as it was written 4 years ago, and the topic is very closed to the question which helps analyzing the case.

Reasonableness: The article was found on EconStor which provides credible information about Economics and Business Studies, the article mainly compares the data so there is little bias.

Support: The authors mention many sources which origin from books and articles/documents on the Internet. The file also viewed by many readers, but no comment was left.

Source 2:

Credentials: The article comes from MarketLine which is credible. Unfortunately, there is little evidence about the author as there are many similar names on the Internet. However, all the articles from MarketLine can be considered credible as they already provide accurate and up-to-date data.

Accuracy: The article was written in 2019, which is new but still not up to date enough to mention the rise of Covid-19. The information is not clearly about Amazon Prime Video as the main purpose of the author is Amazon Prime, not Amazon Prime Video alone, but useful information about Amazon Prime Video still provided.

Reasonableness: As mention, the article was found on MarketLine which is credible. However, this was written from the author’s point of view and there are biases toward Amazon Prime itself.

Support: The author mentions no sources but two articles in the Appendix.

Source 3:

Credentials: The article comes from MarketLine and named MarketLine Analyst Insight. There is no evidence about the author.

Accuracy: Written in 2020 (October), the article is very close to the current situation. The article states clearly the thread and describes the potential threats against Netflix and Amazon, provide some pieces of information about these two companies.

Reasonableness: The article is a report from MarketLine, and the credibility is certain. The main tone of the report is informative, but there are biases toward Netflix than Amazon.

Support: Many sources were mentioned, and further reading is provided. No clue was found about the citation.

Source 4:

Credentials: The article also comes from MarketLine, written by Eleanor Uttley (Senior Research Analyst).

Accuracy: Written in 2018, the information dated back 2 years ago, and the certainty of the data is credible as it comes from MarketLine. The author mentions her final thoughts, which clearly shows her biases.

Reasonableness: There are biases from the analyst. The Analyst Insight comes from MarketLine, so the information comes from the perspective of the author, but little biases were found during reading.

Support: Unfortunately, no source was found but there are appendices for further reading.

Source 5:

Credentials: The article is an Analyst Insight from MarketLine, written by Paul Todd (unfortunately no information was found but this is an article from MarketLine, so the credibility is checked).

Accuracy: Written in 2017, the information is clear and accurate from the research knowledge of the author. The research topic question requires sources from 2010 to 2020 and the data in this article is acceptable.

Reasonableness: There are biases from the analyst as the article is the Analyst Insight comes from MarketLine and the information comes from the perspective of the author, but little biases were found during reading.

Support: Unfortunately, no source was found but there are appendices for further readings.

Source 6:

Credentials: A case study from MarketLine which was conducted by a research team. The case study was uploaded on MarketLine, so the credibility is good.

Accuracy: The accuracy is clear as there are many sources used in this case study, and the author also provide many further readings.

Reasonableness: There are no bias from the article. The case study was written with little bias and clear explanation about the sustainability of Netflix.

Support: Links and further articles are provided.

Source is of good quality: YES, these sources come from a reliable portal of HAN, and I believe that they are credible.

1