Learning, Technology and Change, Results, Clarity and Implications

Traditional, the effectiveness of a research depends on the careful planning and application of effective methods as well as critical evaluation and testing of outcomes of a research. However, some researches can be unreliable, if they are conducted without meeting basic criteria which are traditionally applied to researches. In such a situation, it is possible to analyze several researches in to reveal the extent to which researchers have managed to meet basic criteria of effective researches and develop recommendations which could potentially improve researches.

First of all, it is possible to dwell upon the research conducted by D.C. Dunphy and D.A. Stace, “Transformational and Coercive Strategies for Planned Organizational Change: Beyond the O.D. Model” (1988). In actuality, the researchers attempted to critically evaluate the universality of O.D. theory and their main point was to prove that the O.D. model is imperfect. To meet this goal, the researchers applied different approaches in order to test the O.D. theory. In this respect, it should be said that the researchers focused on two controversial approaches those of participation and coercion. The results of the study basically support the hypothesis of the researcher that the O.D. theory cannot be viewed as universal and applicable to the organizational change evaluation and analysis. At the same time, the researchers fail to back up their study and its results with sufficient statistical information. In fact, statistics is scarce in the research. At this point, it is possible to recommend using descriptive statistics in order to support the criticism of the researchers and prove the ineffectiveness or imperfectness of the O.D. theory.

Furthermore, the authors apparently attempted to evaluate their research but they basically failed to take into consideration possible limitations. Instead, they lay emphasis on the righteousness of their conclusions and findings. In addition, it should be said that the research needs to include the empirical study based on research of actual participants, including a control group, while in the case of the study conducted by Dunphy and Stace it mainly relies on other researches and, on the ground of their findings, the authors attempt to develop their own research. At the same time, the lack of empirical data received by the researchers proper limits the generalizability of the study because it is practically impossible to verify whether the findings of the study can occur in real life situations. For this purpose, the use of experiments could be quite effective.

Nevertheless, the researchers attempted to develop alternative view on their findings, but they present these views very critically, implying their irrelevance because they use the traditional view on the O.D. theory as alternative explanation of their findings. As they prove the imperfectness of the O.D. theory, such alternative explanations are intentionally weak compared to their main arguments and explanations. On the other hand, they accept the null hypothesis. As for the clarity of the research, it should be said that researchers apparently lacks statistical and quantitative back up to make their findings clear and convincing.

Another research, conducted by P.H. Mirvis, A.L. Sales and E.J. Hackett, “The Implementation and Adoption of New Technology in Organizations: The Impact of Work, People and Culture” (1991), seems to be more reliable and valid compared to the research discussed above. To put it more precisely, the researchers attempt and do prove the fact that the use of participatory change strategy along with extensive user training and support contribute to the successful implementation of a technological change. In this respect, it should be said that the researchers amply support their findings with statistical information. Moreover, they use statistics to provide a qualitative characterization of their finding in relation of the personnel to the introduction of a technological change and the reaction of the personnel on the change. In such a way, with the help of statistics the researchers reveal the extent to which participatory strategy can be effective. In addition, the researchers present the statistical information in the form of tables that simplifies the work with the research and contributes to a more effective visualization of the findings that makes the entire research more convincing.

At the same time, the researchers take into consideration possible limitations of their study rather superficially. Instead, they are more concerned with the analysis of their finding and the qualitative analysis of the introduction of a technological change on organizations and personnel. On the other hand, the authors involved a wide range of participants representing different levels of the organizational hierarchy from top executives to employees. However, they fail to take into consideration such variables as age and gender, though they pay a lot of attention to cultural background and environment. In such a way, it is possible to speak about limited subjects variability as a weakness of the study that may also limit the generelizability of the study because it is impossible to define what effects the technological change can produce on subjects of different age or gender. Also, the researchers attempt to present alternative explanations to their findings, which though mainly refer to the analysis and interpretation of cultural effects of the introduction of a technological change.  The authors accept the null hypothesis.

In general, the research is characterized by a high level of clarity since the findings of the research are supported by empirical evidence and statistical information. As a result, the research is quite reliable and convincing. The hypothesis made by the researchers at the beginning of the study was basically proved. In addition, the authors critically evaluated their findings that make their conclusions convincing and reliable. At the same time, the researchers backed up their theoretical assumptions with empirically proved facts.

As for the article “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams” by A. Edmondson, it should be said that the study is mainly focused on the model of team learning which the author proves to be quite effective in the contemporary environment. Similarly to the article discussed above, the article by A. Edmondson is characterized by the effective use of statistical data which support the findings made by the author in the result of her research. it is important to underline that the author attempts to structure the research logically and uses statistical information as a framework for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the effects of team learning. In addition, the author uses the alpha levels appropriately, while the two researches discussed above apparently fail to use the alpha levels properly. Moreover, the author presents the alpha levels in the form of tables that increases the visualization of her research and contributes to the easier comprehensibility of the entire study and to its clarity, which is on a high level.

Furthermore, it should be said that the researcher combines descriptive and multivariate statistics in her analysis. In all probability, she does it intentionally to enlarge the scope of her analysis and test the reliability and validity of her findings. In such a way, the researcher can use different statistical analysis to verify whether her analysis is accurate and correct.

In addition, the author discusses in details possible limitations of her research and critically evaluates her findings. The author argues that the further conceptual and empirical study is needed to prove the correctness of her findings and she admits that her findings can be not absolutely accurate, especially when the qualitative analysis is used.  Consequently, the author admits that her research is incomplete and needs to be continued that probably is a weakness of the study. Another weakness of the study is poor description and selection of subjects of the study. Obviously, both these weaknesses limit the generalizability of the study. At the same time, the author accepts the null hypothesis. Finally, the clarity of the research is at the high level.

Thus, in conclusion, it should be that the researchers often fail to take into consideration and analyze possible limitations of their findings and their studies at large. At the same time, they often lack a critical evaluation of their findings since they tend to ignore alternative explanations for their findings. In such a situation the generalizability of the study can be under a question. Therefore, on analyzing the aforementioned researches, it is possible to recommend focusing on the critical analysis of the findings, their adequate assessment, including the evaluation of possible limitations and weaknesses of the study.