Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
Qualitative Research Methods exam VU pre-master marketing tentamen
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
Qualitative Research Methods exam VU pre-master marketing tentamen 2014
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 20 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 20 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationExam: Qualitative Research Method PM (2013-2014)
Code: (Exam code)
Examinator: dr. M. H. Rezazade Mehrizi
Co-reader: dr. A. Porter & dr. H. Berends
Date: May 23, 2014
Time: 8:30
Duration: 2 hours and 45 minutes
Calculator allowed: Yes
Graphical calculator
allowed: Yes
Number of questions: 3
Type of questions: Open
Answer in: English
Remarks:
1- Please read the questions very carefully. Missing some parts of the question might
affect your whole answer.
2- Please first think about your answer, and then start writing down. This way, you can
better structure your answers.
3- You can use all course material for answering the questions.
4- You are NOT allowed to use any communication with others. The exam is an individual
exercise.
5- You have maximum 2:30 hours for answering the three questions. Please make sure
that you properly estimate the time needed for each question.
Credit score: The overall grade of final exam is 100 points. You need to get at
least 50 points to pass the final exam.
Grades: The grades will be made public on June 2 nd.
Inspection: Tuesday, June 3rd (Main Building, 7A-09)
Number of pages: 17 (10 pages of questions (including the front page) + 7 pages
of paper for question 1)
Good luck!
Question 1 (40 points): Throughout the course, we have discussed different
aspects of qualitative research methods, including “research design”, “data
1
, collection”, and “data analysis”. You have part of a paper that is reporting a
qualitative research (mainly the methodology sections). Please read it carefully
and answer the following questions. In doing so, please be specific when you are
referring to the paper (e.g., mention which page, …). Make sure that you provide
enough explanations for your criticisms (why do you think that this is a problem),
by using the material that we have discussed in the course.
A) Regarding the “research design”, please describe one problem / limitation
of the study that should be improved and explain why?
Main answers (10 points if mentioning at least one of them)
The design does not allow for comparing learning from major vs. minor incidents
(it only focuses on major incidents).
The design is not specific about the level of analysis, especially with regards to
the difference between top managers and other actors in the learning process
(we cannot rule out whether the things that we found about top managers are
exclusively related to them).
The second specific RQ (“to what extent …”) is more aligned with measurement
and perhaps would fit a rather quantitative study and/or more explanatory form
of case study.
Relevant, a bit less correct answers! (7 points granted)
- The unit of analysis is “learning”. The organization is the unit of analysis,
but it is not the most specific thing that we want to know about. For example,
if you say that the whole organization is the unit of analysis, what if the
learning takes place only among the top managers?
- Being retrospective surely is a limitation. However, it was the best, feasible
option. We need to criticize a research with regards to its overall context of
study.
- The fact that the focus on IT companies makes it unlikely to generalize to
“technical companies” is not such a major issue, because this is not the aim
of qualitative study.
Not so correct answers (granted 5)
- Surely it is important that research design be based on theories and gaps in
the past literature. However, in this answer it is mentioned that you do not
have the full paper. You just had the methodology sections of the paper.
Therefore, it is not possible to question the theoretical background of the
paper once we do not have access to it.
- Unit of observation, though is not explicitly mentioned, is stressed to be
“practices” that organizations took after incident to capitalize on the
experience of past incidents.
- Criticizing the writing of the text, though is relevant in general, was not the
thing that the question is asking for.
2
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper StudentVU2016. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53340 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen