Page 182 - [Uma_Sekaran]_Research_methods_for_business__a_sk(BookZZ.org)

166 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

have gained expertise that the control group has been denied. But should this
be deemed to become an ethical dilemma preventing experimental designs with
control groups in organizational research? Perhaps not, for at least three reasons.
One is that several others in the system who did not participate in the experi-
ment did not benefit either. Second, even in the experimental groups, some
would have benefited more than the others (depending on the extent to which
the causal factor is manipulated). Finally, if a cause-and-effect relationship is
found, the system would in all probability implement the newfound knowledge
sooner or later and everyone would ultimately stand to gain. The assumption that
the control group did not benefit from participating in the experiment may not
be a sufficient reason not to use lab or field experiments.
Many universities have a “human subjects committee” to protect the right of
individuals participating in any type of research activity involving people. The
basic function of these committees is to discharge the moral and ethical respon-
sibilities of the university system by studying the procedures outlined in the
research proposals and giving their stamp of approval to the study. The human
subjects committee might require the investigators to modify their procedures or
inform the subjects fully, if occasion demanded it.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Before using experimental designs in research studies, it is essential to consider
whether they are necessary at all, and if so, at what level of sophistication. This
is because experimental designs call for special efforts and varying degrees of
interference with the natural flow of activities. Some questions that need to be
addressed in making these decisions, are the following:

1. Is it really necessary to identify causal relationships, or would it suffice if the cor-
relates that account for the variance in the dependent variable were known?
2. If it is important to trace the causal relationships, which of the two, internal
validity or external validity, is needed more, or are both needed? If only inter-
nal validity is important, a carefully designed lab experiment would be the
answer; if generalizability is the more important criterion, then a field exper-
iment would be called for; if both are equally important, then a lab study
should be first undertaken, followed by a field experiment, if the results of
the former warrant the latter.
3. Is cost an important factor in the study? If so, would a less rather than more
sophisticated experimental design do?

These decision points are illustrated in the chart in Figure 7.7.
Though managers may not often be interested in cause-and-effect relation-
ships, a good knowledge of experimental designs could foster some pilot stud-
ies to be undertaken to examine if factors such as bonus systems, piece rates,
rest pauses, and so on lead to positive outcomes such as better motivation,