Assess the view that what participant observation lacks in terms of reliability Essay Example for Free

Assess the view that what participant observation lacks in terms of reliability Essay Assess the view that what participant observation lacks in terms of reliability representativeness, it more than makes up for in terms of validity. Participant Observation is where the researcher infiltrates themselves into a certain group or gang to study them from within. The researcher usually puts themselves in a position where they are in the main part of the group, and they usually study the activities and attitudes of the different gang/group members. The observation is usually carefully thought through, it is usually recorded in field notes, and can often take months, even years to complete. Participant Observation usually doesnt start with a definite hypothesis, so new ideas and thoughts about the group or the way that an idea may turn out usually come through when the observer is part of the group. You can either do overt (people know you are doing it) or covert (undercover) observations, or even a combination of both. Although this may seem like a very kosher method to use, there are quite a few disadvantages of doing this; Bias is a concern because if the observer starts being drawn into the group, their own views will be abandoned because they may start seeing things through the groups eyes, and may blind the researcher to other views that may be available. The influence of the researcher may also be a problem, because if a group know that they are being studied, they may alter their behaviour, and so the research is pointless. For example, with James Patricks study of a Glaswegian Gang, he was suspected of holding back in fights and being reluctant to participate in some of the activities of the Gang, and this was pointed out by a member of the gang, but thankfully, the leader of the Gang stood up for Patrick, because he was the only one who actually knew that the gang was being studied. Ethical Issues are also a problem, because if the researcher goes in really deep with the group, then they may have to illegal or immoral activities, which may go against the researchers own values. The actual proof of the study is also a problem because you have no way of replicating the exact study, and so have no way of knowing if the research is true or not. This kind of study is also on too small a scale, and so you cannot repeat it again. Also, due to the micro-ness of it, you cannot make generalisations for the whole population based on one group, or if you were studying gangs and their motives for committing crimes or something like that, you cant assume that all other gangs will have the same motives. And finally, most researchers like to study the less powerful groups in society, and there has been a debate over whether this is right or not because we can possibly miss the important issues that are going on. However, there are some advantages to using this method, and so we cannot just assume that all sociologists see this as a bad method to use; By joining a certain group, the sociologist would be able to gain knowledge of certain subjects from that groups point of view, and they would be able to fully understand the sorts of things that were going on, and gaining different perspectives. Also, you can generate new ideas from being in a new group, and this can lead you to new perspectives and ideas. You also get more of the truth and honesty if you are doing overt participant observation, so you can quite easily prove or disprove any hypotheses you have come up with. You are also to dig deeper into the group so to speak, because if you are a part of the group, then you can uncover issues that may normally remain hidden or are secretive. Participant observation is also dynamic because if you are with a group over time, you understand how they work and how attitudes and behaviour change over time. Lastly, you can dig deeper into areas that you arent typically able to reach, for example, with young offenders or religious groups. It is, however, simplistic to assume that participant observation will automatically produce valid results, as there are many threats to this validity.

Ansoff And Sfa Evaluation Management Essay

Ansoff And Sfa Evaluation Management Essay GM could use product development to improve revenue on a number of brands. However GM must work to drive down costs. Using Porters (1984) cost based generic strategy. It shows reducing costs can also create a competitive advantage. If costs are lowered and price is kept relatively similar this will improve profits (Hines, 2004). This could be seen as a suitable and acceptable option. However how could the costs be reduced? Many suppliers are suffering similar problems from the recession. One strategy would be too merge or acquire existing suppliers, a method of external development (White, 2004), which would reduce costs, improve core competencies and could even lead to technological development. However is this feasible? The strategy has risk, as this may not necessarily reduce costs or improve profits therefore it is not totally acceptable. GM should continue operating in Europe for the foreseeable future. They have changed the business strategy to focus on becoming leaner and developing core brands, while investing considerably in diversification (Sunderland, 2009). This is the best strategic option open to GM however it must be managed well. Applying it to the main success criteria can highlight how this is the best action (Johnson, Scholes and Whittington, 2007): Suitability This strategy addresses the position of GM. Outlined within the SWOT analysis was the need for product development and the introduction of smaller car ranges. GM have already committed to investing if it gets new products into the market faster (Vlasic, 2009). Additionally McAlister (2009), states that GM are already working on new products that they can continue building within the UK plants beyond 2013. An identified strength was its large supply and distribution network therefore using this core competency it can implement new product ranges. If a competitive advantage is gained then it can use the European market as an additional sales environment. Although Yip (2003) states global strategies can have different driving forces, competencies can still be applied if GM understands the local cultures (Lynch, 2003). Staying in Europe is a logical step. To withdraw now could lead to larger costs in the future, such as re-entry into the market as sales in this area cannot be ignored. Ec onomies of scale exist such as an extensive knowledge through suppliers etc so risk would be low for the implementation of any new strategies. Feasibility GM are a global organisation, they have an existing network of both tangible and intangible resources. However significant investment is needed in RD, which could be attained through selling underperforming brands, although as mentioned GM are willing to commit to this aspect. There are no significant issues of time scale but change is not always immediate. For this strategy to work the rate of change must be quick (Johnson et al, 2007) and adopting a new culture is the priority so the management and workforce must show commitment. This could be difficult as the previous culture was slow to react and very bureaucratic (Maynard, 2009). In the future resources may be needed within Europe and by opting to stay GM will have greater access, making the option more feasible. Acceptability A number of stakeholders benefit from this strategy. They government expect GM to keep sales high in order to pay back their debts and this can be achieved more efficiently by existing in a larger market. GM advised there will be a number of job losses, helping towards their restructure and reduction of wages (BBC, 2009). Additionally GM has made the correct decision ethically. This business is vital for a number of industries and therefore helps towards employment so withdrawing from Europe could have a huge effect on suppliers, distributors etc. Finally GM has also made the best decision for their owners. Staying in this market will increase sales and further product development could help sustain a competitive advantage. Although diversification failed in 2004 (Vlasic, 2009) with the mass produced but under marketed EV1 range (Vlasic, 2009), it is possible with the correct investment and understanding it can be a success. Although as outlined above this is the best strategy available to GM, focus must be placed on developing new technology. Bowmans strategy clock (appendix 12) shows that offering differentiated products at a market average price can lead to increased sales through high perceived service benefits (Wheelen and Hunger, 2008). If GM were to market any new technology at a high price it could lead to strategy failure as these products may already exist. In comparison if GM introduces similar products at a lower price it could create an immediate and sustainable competitive advantage. Example 2 Ansoff Matrix, proposed by Igor ansoff, used to classify and explain 4 strategies for business growth. For the case studied, GM opted for consolidation and market penetration. GM uses consolidation strategy (Ansoff) to increase sales without drifting from its original product, we speak of market strategy. GM wants to penetrate this market by improving product quality and provide a real service to these customers. To achieve its goal, GM spends large sums of money in marketing and communication, like advertising for example. This strategy is important for GM because retaining existing customers is cheaper than attracting new customers. It therefore decided to keep five brands already in its possession. Yet, GM is moving beyond its customer base to attract new customers for its existing products. This strategy often involves the sale of existing products into new international markets. For example, the new GM wants to expand its market share thanks to the demand emerging countries like Brazil, China, and India. Indeed, these countries are expanding and it is a growing market for years in the motor industry. Evaluation of the strategies To evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy of the new GM, the SFA (Suitability, Feasibility and acceptability) is an important tool. This theory presented by Johnson, Scholes and Whittington (seventh edition, p. 371, 2005) may help us to analyze the potential of the strategy. The suitability of this strategy is well. The old GM was producing big cars and consumed a lot. They were not economic and do not respect the environment. Thus, the American manufacturer has seen its sales fall in recent years. In addition, the feasibility of this option is good. The new GM has a lot of knowledge and an impressive physical capital. GM already knows the brands it represents. In addition, engineers are working continuously to develop more economical cars. There is a university in the company to provide access to information. Moreover, GM today focuses on 5 brands instead of 11; it can devote a largest share of investment in the RD sector. To finish, GM has received some aids. To finish, the acceptability of this strategy is good. GM is supported by many governments and organizations (for the development of new energy) for its restructuring. It receives financial aid. The US government spends money for GM restructuration, in return GM has to develop clean cars. Personally, I chose the same option as it is obvious that the Old GM had a wide range of products. But they do not come up to consumers expectations. In addition, I took the risk to launch the company into emerging market because there is great potential in sales. Thus, I proposed new models for this market and even open factories, specifically to come up to consumers expectation. Example 3 Identification and Evaluation of Strategy Product development and related diversification (Ansoff, 1988) Mc Afees software will provide Intels chips with hardware-enhancing security (Takahashi, 2010) which leads to a competitive advantage. This strategy is classified as product development since Intel delivers a technologically modified product to its existing market (Johnson, Scholes Whittington, 2008). As Mc Afee remains an independently run security company which stays in its market (BBC News, 2010) it is regarded as one key player in the emerging market of cloud computing (Takahashi, 2010). This vertical integration enables Intel to expand to new markets, diversify the risk through a broader product portfolio and enhance its growth perspectives. Therefore Intel follows the strategy of a related diversification (Johnson et al, 2008). Suitability The strategic directions are suitable as long as they address the key issues identified previously (Johnson et al, 2008). As Intels current market is almost stagnating, the strategic direction should enable long-term growth. Moreover it should incorporate the knowledge of consumer and technological trends in mobile computing. With the acquisition of McAfee, Intel addresses the trend for security and energy efficiency in chips. Moreover they react to the saturated market of PCs as McAfee is expected to be a key player in the growing market of cloud computing (Takahashi, 2010). Another issue arises from anti-trust regulations which prevent Intel from acquiring competitors. A vertical integration does not violate any laws while it enables Intel to enhance its growth perspectives in new markets (diversification). Feasibility Intels strength to finance their investments from their operating profit supports the financial feasibility of the acquisition strategy. Intels healthy financial position allows the company to exploit RD to integrate McAfees security software in their chips. Moreover they gained much experience with MA initiatives from the past (Intel, 2010). This implies that they have strong resources and competences in place which enhance the strategys effectiveness. Acceptability The acquisition was decided unanimously by the both boards. However, falling stock prices of Intel (Appendix 6) reflect suspicious shareholders (Hardawar, 2010). A possible reason for mistrust is seen in a lack of understanding of the gains in comparison to the immense acquisition costs. Intel argues that the financial position justifies the $7.68bn acquisition (BBC News, 2010) which is supported by the assumption to regenerate the $5 billion cash spend for the acquisition in less than a year (Hardawar, 2010). However, the deal may help Intel to gain wider long-term profit margins which reflects a higher shareholder value (King, 2010). Since the acquisition enhanced Intels vertical integration focus and does not place any threat towards anti-trust violations, there is no risk incorporated with governmental intervention (Hardawar, 2010).

Essay --

INTRODUCTION This consultancy report is addressed to Walmart, the leading multinational retail company of the world planning to enter in recently liberalised and reformed Indian retail sector, where foreign direct investment has been allowed cent-percent in real terms. The report deals with four specified aspects. Firstly political system and risk of India is analysed from the perspective of Walmart. Next market potential is assessed with reference to opportunities and challenges. Further trade and investment barriers are detailed with reference to the observation of the World Bank. Finally entry mode and location choice is recommended for Walmart to operate in India, where the likely cross-cultural management point is also made. MAIN BODY Assessing Political System and Risk Political risk assessment is a vital part of international investment by multinational companies, where political risk all concerns to the risk that a host country ctreate through its political decisions that might be dterimental for on the success and survival of the multinational companyies in profitable manner. Unfavorable political system or policies might result in detriments in the extensive damage because of revolution to those of a more fiscal nature, in the form of the formation of laws that put off the movement of capital (Phung, 2009). Naturally whilst investing in Indian market Walmart needs to close assess the likely political risk situation in the country, from the perspective various factors relating to political risk. As Dà ¶rrenbà ¤cher and Geppert .(2013) argue that multinational companies might be breeding grounds for internal political pressure in a host country where fight for control amid head quarters and their subsidiaries might dis... ...minate the trade and investment barriers from the perspective of multinational companies such as Walmart. Hence, Walmart can hope a better trade and investment environment in Indian. It can work with the government in the country together with World Bank for negotiating maximum in its favour in the new policy environment, Walmart has more opportunities and challlenges, but opportunities may well be exploited only in the case of choosing the right entry mode. Walmart has two potential options in the forms aquisition or creating subsidiary in the country. The former would be comparatively more effective considering the unorganised nature of Indian retail sector. The success of this multinational company in India will be largely depend on cross-cultural management, particularly in the context of standardisation versus adaptation whether the later can be recommended.

Interpersonal Communication Essay -- essays research papers

In every society nonverbal communication is one of the most powerful tools that a person can use to interpret the message that is being delivered. Even though verbal communication is fairly straightforward, nonverbal communication allows others to sense the true emotions of the person that is expressing them. For example even though a person may say that they are not irritated, their usage of voice may display otherwise. Nonverbal communication not only reveals hidden messages, but it also complements, substitutes, and exaggerates verbal communication.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It was 8:00 a.m. on April 9, 1999 and I was saying goodbye to my parents at the San Francisco Airport. While I was walking away from my parent’s gate I remembered the study for my Interpersonal Communication class, and decided that the airport was a perfect place to observe nonverbal behavior. I sat myself near the entrance of a gate so I could clearly focus on personal space and voice behaviors while people stood in line to board their plane. This location allowed me to observe some very distinct behaviors, and I was amazed at the many different ways people express their emotions and the many people that weren’t aware of these expressions.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  After I observed four different boarding lines, I soon realized how impatient our society reacts to situations. As soon as the airline attendants announced the boarding for a certain flight, it seemed as if everybody rushed to the...

Are British Prime Ministers as powerful as sometimes claimed? Essay

It can be argued that Prime ministers are almost omnipotent in the political system in the UK, this is due to the shear variety of powers in-which the prime minister holds, and the prerogatives that are taken advantage by the prime minister. However, checks on powers in the UK means that the prime minister is not as power as they appear, moreover, they are not separable from the UK political system, henceforth, they are controlled and limited within the system they are part of, thus, more often than not, prime ministers are less powerful then sometimes claimed.However, prime ministers are as powerful as they appear due to the multiple sources of power they control within the UK. Mainly, the prime minister has a vast amount of power as they are part of both the executive branch of government and the legislature, due to the fusion of powers in the UK political system, this means that they can create law and then use their representation in the legislature to force through the law. More over, prime ministers have many prerogatives that were granted to the queen as the head of state. This was seen in 2003 when Tony Blair used his prime ministerial powers to declare war on Afghanistan. Hence, due to the extensive variation in their powers, prime ministers are as powerful as they claim, as all parts of the government are open to their control, though prime ministers are not always able to exploit all these powers, but the power is there for prime ministers to take. Hence, in the sense of variety, prime ministers are as powerful as they seem. Contrastingly, prime ministers powers are very dependable, and in many cases, the extent to a prime ministers powers depends on the size of their party’s majority in government. This was portrayed by the weak prime ministerial control of Harold Wilson in 1974, when his minority Labour Party took government for all of seven months and achieved nothing. Thus, a prime ministers power is little if their party is not in a powerful position in government. This has been observed more recently with Cameron’s proposed reforms of the NHS, however, with only a 76 seat majority (provided by the coalition with the liberal Democrats), there has been incredibly slow progress, even with Cameron’s constant campaigning and push for the implement of the reforms. Hence, prime ministers are not as powerful as  sometimes claimed as they have little control over proceedings of government by themselves, it is only when they are accompanied by a strong position in parliament by their r epresented party that their objectives can be achieved. Thus, the power of a majority party on government is sometimes mistaken and thought of as a prime ministers power, thus making them appear more powerful than they are, Nevertheless, prime ministers are powerful in the sense they dominate political agenda within government. Since Thatcher’s domination of the political agenda of the privatisation of public businesses in the 1980’s other prime ministers have displayed their power in the same way. Cameron has dominated the political agendas since 2010 with his policy of the Big Society, which has been the centre piece for his leadership, thus it is constantly referee to throughout both the government and the media. In this case, prime ministers are as powerful as they claim, as they are the leaders in government, hence the political agenda is fully controlled by what they as leader wish to tackle most in government. Prime ministers set the tone for their leadership, they have the ultimate decision on the political agenda country and thus have a powerful image and position as all those in government, to some extent, must follow their lead; even if they wish to debate against the political agenda, thus they cast power over all those involved in government and parliament. On-the-other-hand prime ministers, like all people are confined by the events that take place around them, this they are not that powerful as these events define the extent to which they can achieve their aims. For instance, Brown’s power became very limited over the countries economics after the credit crunch of 2008, meaning that prime ministers are not as powerful as sometimes claimed because it is the events in-which impact their reign that control the extent of their power. Even when times were good during Blair’s leadership, and the economic boom of the 2000’s, Blair was only able to invest heavily in education and public services due to the fact times were economically good, not due to the fact he had power as a prime minister. Thus, a prime ministers power is dependable and elastic throughout their reign. Prime ministers do not have a set power, and cannot be as powerful as  sometimes claimed unless all the factors within government are in their favour, thus prime ministers are not as powerful as sometimes claimed. However, in the aspects in which a prime ministers have power over, such as cabinet, they do dominate and are as powerful as they appear. Both Thatcher and Blair dominated their cabinets during their time as prime ministers. Blair called cabinet meetings when he saw fit and developed the idea of â€Å"kitchen cabinet† in which he would select small groups of advisors, and even then it was mostly to inform them of his ideas on a policy, and to inform the members what was needed of them to achieve these ideas. Moreover, Thatcher dominated cabinet with such strength that it lead to the resignation of Geoffrey Howe in 1990, as he felt she dominated cabinet too much, or in other words, was too powerful for the good of the government. Hence, prime ministers are incredibly powerful in the sense that they can completely control the aspects of government in which they have some form of power in, and therefore in these aspects, much like cabinet, prime ministers are as powerful as somet imes claimed, if not more powerful. Contrastingly, power is these aspects of government are limited as they are still parts of government, hence this power can be weakened or even nullified by these aspects of government. It is these aspects that lead to the removal of Thatcher by her own party, and cabinet especially, in 1990. Blair also suffered a similar fate in 2007 as he was removed from power by his Labour Party. Therefore, though prime ministers do have these powers in government, it is the government which checks these powers and limits them massively. Thus, though prime ministers may appear to have limitless power in aspects of government, this power is hard to attain and sustain throughout their time as leaders. The powers are very often constructed by opposition parties in government and disagreements in cabinets. Hence a prime minster is not as powerful as sometimes claimed as their power is forever limited by factors outside of their control, mainly those also involved in government. Therefore to conclude, though prime ministers have a large variety of power, and in some cases can exert incredible amounts of power to dominate these  aspect, as a whole prime ministers are not as powerful as they appear. It is the checks and balances on these powers that make sure that the facade of a prime ministers power remain as such. The UK democratic system was created to prevent tyranny by a monarch, thus it also stops the over exertion of power by a prime minster; to prevent the same tyranny. Additionally, regardless of how much power one prime minster has, their power is an elastic model throughout their reign, reaching points of omnipotence and weakness, depending on factors that are mostly out of a prime ministers control. Moreover, a prime minster remains the first among equals, but these combined equals in cabinet and parliament have the closer to nullify a prime ministers power, it is for these reasons that prime ministers are not as powerful as sometimes claimed.