Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:06:45.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Audience response systems as a data collection method in organizational research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Matthew W McCarter  and
Arran Caza
Matthew W McCarter
Affiliation:
College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign IL, USA
Arran Caza
Affiliation:
College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign IL, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Audience responses systems are electronic devices allowing audience interaction and they are increasingly being used in educational and business settings to enhance various pedagogical and practical processes. This paper discusses how ARS technology may be used as a method of collecting data for research purposes. Specifically, this paper demonstrates ARS technology's potential utility by duplicating findings from two organisational studies, it discusses how ARS technology may be used to address three prevalent data collection problems, and it suggests how ARS technology may provide scholars with increased access to certain organisational settings, as well as greater integration between research and service activities.

Keywords

audience response systempersonal response systemaudience response technologydata collection techniquesdata collection technologyorganizational research methods
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 122 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, JS and Sperry, T (1994) Business school prestige: Research versus teaching, Interfaces 24: 13–43.Google Scholar
Barber, M and Njus, D (2007) Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design, CBE-Life Science Education 6: 1–20.Google Scholar
Boyer, EL (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton NJ.Google Scholar
Bryman, A (2000) Research methods and organization studies. Routledge, London UK.Google Scholar
Bunz, U (2005) Using scantron versus an audience response system for survey research: Does methodology matter when measuring computer-mediated communication competence? Computers & Human Behaviour 21: 343–359.Google Scholar
Byrd, GG, Coleman, S and Werneth, C (2004) Exploring the universe together: Cooperative Quizzes with and without a Classroom Performance System in Astronomy 101, Astronomy Education Review 3: Retrieved 10 10 2007, from http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=91%3E%3Cimg%20src=.Google Scholar
Caldwell, J (2006) Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips, CBE-Life Science Education 6: 9–20.Google Scholar
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysisfor the behavioural sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.Google Scholar
Czaja, S, Sharit, J, Nair, S and Rubert, M (1998) Understanding sources of user variability in computer-based data entry performance, Behaviour & Information Technology 17: 282–293.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, CJ, Eastburn, DM and Mullally, K (2007) Effective use of a personal response system in a general education plant pathology class, Planet Earth Instructor Retrieved 10 10 2007, from http://www.apsnet.org/education/InstructorCommunication/TeachingArticles/PRSPathology/default.htm.Google Scholar
Diekmann, A (1985) Volunteer's dilemma, Journal of Conflict Resolution 29: 605–610.Google Scholar
Dillmam, A (2007) Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken NJ.Google Scholar
Draper, S, Cargill, J and Cutts, Q (2002) Electronic enhanced classroom interaction, Australian Journal of Education Technology 18: 13–23.Google Scholar
Duncan, D (2006) Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise, Astronomy Education Review 5: 70–88.Google Scholar
Eden, D (2003) Critical management studies and the academy of management journal: Challenge and counterchallenge, Academy of Management Journal 46: 390–394.Google Scholar
Eid, M and Diener, E (2005) Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Feng, S (2004) Detecting errors in the current population survey: a matching approach, Economics Letters 82: 189–194.Google Scholar
Fies, C and Marshall, J (2006) Classroom response systems: A review of the literature, Journal of Science Education & Technology 15: 101–109.Google Scholar
Fox, KJ and Milbourne, R (1999) What determines research output of academic economists? Economic Record 75: 256–267.Google Scholar
Franzen, A (1995) Group size and one-shot collective action, Rationality & Society 7: 183–200.Google Scholar
Gamito, E, Burhansstipanov, L, Krebs, L, Bemis, L and Bradley, A (2005) The use of an electronic audience response system for data collection, Journal of Cancer Education 20: 80–86.Google Scholar
Hansen, J and Hill, N (1998) Control and audit of electronic data interchange, MIS Quarterly 13: 402–413.Google Scholar
Hatch, S (2003) ARS systems: creativity and planning required, Corporate Meetings & Incentives 22: 35–36.Google Scholar
Hattie, J and Marsh, HW (1996) The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research 66: 507–542.Google Scholar
Heckathorn, D (1996) The dynamics and dilemmas of collective action, American Sociological Review 61: 250–277.Google Scholar
Homme, J, Asay, G and Morgenstern, B (2004) Utilisation of an audience response system, Medical Education 38: 575.Google Scholar
James, C (1990) Evaluating the cost effectiveness of hand-held computer technology, Public Productivity & Management Review 13: 201–213.Google Scholar
Kerr, S (1975) On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B, Academy of Management Journal 18: 769–783.Google Scholar
Krantz, M (2004) Audience response system = marketing tool, Meeting News 28: 5.Google Scholar
Liebrand, W (1983) A classification of social dilemma games, Simulation & Games 14: 123–138.Google Scholar
Magolda, MB (1999) Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville TN.Google Scholar
Miller, R, Ashar, B and Getz, K (2003) Evaluation of an audience response system for continuing education of health professionals, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 23: 109–116.Google Scholar
Murnighan, JK, Kim, JW and Metzger, AR (1993) The volunteer dilemma, Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 515–538.Google Scholar
Murphy, FH (1994) Don't let shallow reporters set the agenda: A comment on Armstrong & Sperry (1994), Interfaces 24: 25–26.Google Scholar
Olson, M (1965) The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Pedhazur, E and Schmelkin, L (1991) Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S, Church, A, Waclawski, J and Stanton, J (2002) Organizational survey research. In Rogelberg, S (Ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 141–161. Blackwell Publishing, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R (1994) Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research, Psychological Science 5: 127–134.Google Scholar
Scandura, T and Williams, E (2000) Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research, Academy of Management Journal 43: 1248–1264.Google Scholar
Sen, A (1985) Goals, commitment, and identity, Journal of Law Economics & Organizations 1: 341–355.Google Scholar
Siegel, S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Shadish, WR, Cook, TD and Campbell, DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Smith, W (1967) Accuracy of manual entries in data collection devices, Journal of Applied Psychology 51: 362–368.Google Scholar
Sproull, LS (1986) Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research, Academy of Management Journal 29 159–169.Google Scholar
Starbuck, WH (2004) Why I stopped trying to understand the real world, Organization Studies 27: 1233–1254.Google Scholar
Stone-Romero, E (2002). The relative validity and usefulness of various empirical research designs, in Rogelberg, S (Ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp 77–98, Blackwell Publishing, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Task Force on Teaching and Career Development (2007) A compact to enhance teaching and learning at Harvard. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Training and Development (2006) Improving business decisions and strategic planning, 60: 63–65.Google Scholar
Webb, E, Campbell, D, Schwartz, R and Sechrest, L (2000) Unobtrusive measures: Revised edition. Sage, London.Google Scholar