In this module, we will consider interesting data associated with so-called illegal corporate behavior studies conducted by M B Clinard, P C Yeager, and others in the middle 1970’s. (In this module’s SLP, you will have an opportunity to experiment with their data and to experience some of the joys and frustrations associated with analyzing secondary data.)
These data are interesting partly because they represent an attempt to study behavior that is not directly retrievable — no one keeps records on commission of corporate crime, there are no regular reporting requirements for it, and not a lot of people will answer questionnaires about how often they commit it. So studies of this phenomenon have to make certain inferences about illegal behavior and to use legal behavior as indicators of illegal behavior.
So there are interesting questions of operational definition involved in these studies. In addition, since these studies are very difficult to do and really can’t be done very often, they often become the focus of a lot of secondary analysis. Please prepare a short paper discussing the lessons you’ve learned from the Case about how archival and secondary data are collected and used.
In this analysis, using the following questions as titles, you should discuss the following 7 issues:
A. What are the key concepts, constructs, and measures (operationalizations) of those constructs defined by the original study (Clinard & Yeager (2006,1980)) — from where did the measures come? Code Book #1 see attached Code Book #2 see attached The most direct way of answering Question A is to complete (a copy/paste of) the following table into your paper. Concept Construct Measure Variables The size of an enterprise is determined by the summed employment of all associated establishments Size of Business Log of the 5 year mean number of employees Number of Employees for (1971-1975) etc etc etc etc
B.1. What is the research design for Boies (1989)? Defend your position. B.2. Comment on anything interesting about the variables that Boies studied. For example, are there levels of measurement issues? If there are level of measurement issues, defend your position that those issues exist. Hint: Examination of the dummy variables should give you a good lead for the answer to this Q.
C. What is the research design proposed by Daboub, Rasheed, Priem, & Gray (1995)? Defend your position. Hint, examination of the the model in the article should give you a good lead for the answer to this Q.
D. What modifications or adjustments were made to the concepts, constructs, and measures identified by Clinard & Yeager (2006,1980) by either Boies (1989) or proposed by Daboub, Rasheed, Priem, & Gray (1995)? Defend your position. Hint: Are Daboub’s definitions and measures that Daboub obtained from C&Y used to measure the same concepts that C&Y measured?
Hint: Are Boes’ definitions and measures that Boies obtained from C&Y used to measure the same concepts that C&Y measured? The most direct way of answering Question D is to complete (a copy/paste of) the following table into your paper Concept Construct Measure Variables Adjustment by Boies OR Dabaub The size of an enterprise is determined by the summed employment of all associated establishments Size of Business Log of the 5 year mean number of employees Number of Employees for (1971-1975) etc etc etc etc Etc
E. 1. What is the degree to which the Clinard & Yeager (1987) data really matched the purposes of the secondary studies conducted by Boise (1989) and proposed by Daboub, Rasheed, Priem, & Gray (1995? Defend your position Hint: To what degree did the C&Y data used by Boies match the purpose of Boies? To what degree will the C&Y data to be used by Daboub match the purpose of Daboub? E.
2. What is the degree to which the archival data (the Clinard and Yeager (1987) data) were really suitable to the secondary studies conducted by Boise (1989) and proposed by Daboub, Rasheed, Priem, & Gray (1995)? Defend your position Hint: To what degree was the C&Y data used by Boies suitable? To what degree will the C&Y data be suitable to be used by Daboub?
E. 3. What is the degree to which the secondary studies conducted by Boise (1989) and proposed by Daboub, Rasheed, Priem, & Gray (1995? were designed around the availability of data (Clinard & Yeayer (1987) rather than around a clear theoretical model? Defend your position. Hint: Which came first? Did Boies know that the C&Y data esisted then design a study around the data or did Boies design a study then search for data? Did Daboub know that the C&Y data existed then design a study around the data or did Daboub design a study then search for data?
F. What is your overall assessment of the utility of secondary and archival data? Defend your position. Martin Dodge has a good presentation on Problems and Pitfalls in Analysing Secondary Data. sec_anal_dodge.ppt When your paper (5-6 pages give or take would probably be a reasonable expectation).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three × three =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.