IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i3d10.1007_s11135-022-01461-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recommendations for improving research quality: relationships among constructs, verbs in hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, and triangulation

Author

Listed:
  • Gjoko Stamenkov

    (South East European University)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to suggest recommendations for improving research quality and theory development by addressing four issues. Two of them concern hypotheses, their statements, and observed inconsistencies found in articles; the other two address issues related to theoretical perspectives and triangulation. We used a purposive sampling of scientific fields and articles that support and ground the ideas of this general review. This study clarifies inconsistent opposite relationships among variables found in theoretical models, discusses the usage of verbs in hypotheses, focuses on the cause-and-effect relationship between variables, identifies ways in which to rectify inconsistencies by including additional theoretical perspectives, and reminds the research community about triangulation. This paper concludes with the implications for research, practice, and society.

Suggested Citation

  • Gjoko Stamenkov, 2023. "Recommendations for improving research quality: relationships among constructs, verbs in hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, and triangulation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2923-2946, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01461-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01461-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01461-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-022-01461-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Burton-Jones & Ephraim R McLean & Emmanuel Monod, 2015. "Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 664-679, November.
    2. Alsajjan, Bander & Dennis, Charles, 2010. "Internet banking acceptance model: Cross-market examination," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 957-963, September.
    3. Anton Oleinik, 2011. "Mixing quantitative and qualitative content analysis: triangulation at work," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 859-873, June.
    4. Norman Blaikie, 1991. "A critique of the use of triangulation in social research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 115-136, May.
    5. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    6. Yang Liu, 2022. "Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    7. Peter B. Seddon, 1997. "A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 240-253, September.
    8. Sarkar, Subhro & Chauhan, Sumedha & Khare, Arpita, 2020. "A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in mobile commerce," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 286-301.
    9. Joanna Sale & Lynne Lohfeld & Kevin Brazil, 2002. "Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, February.
    10. Poole, Marshall Scott & Van de Ven, Andrew H. & Dooley, Kevin & Holmes, Michael E., 2000. "Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195131987.
    11. Bolton, Ruth N & Drew, James H, 1991. "A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(4), pages 375-384, March.
    12. M. Heyvaert & B. Maes & P. Onghena, 2013. "Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 659-676, February.
    13. Achim Goerres & Katrin Prinzen, 2012. "Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 415-450, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tsung Teng Chen, 2012. "The development and empirical study of a literature review aiding system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 105-116, July.
    2. Abdesamad Zouine & Pierre Fenies, 2014. "The Critical Success Factors Of The ERP System Project: A Meta-Analysis Methodology," Post-Print hal-01419785, HAL.
    3. Landrum, Hollis & Prybutok, Victor R., 2004. "A service quality and success model for the information service industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(3), pages 628-642, August.
    4. Nurlia Dewi & Willy Abdillah & Muhartini Salim & Slamet Widodo, 2021. "The Role of Leadership in Implementation Public Information System of Local Government Institutions in Indonesia," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 11(6), pages 1-9.
    5. A. Maes & G. Poels, 2006. "Development of a user evaluations based quality model for conceptual modeling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/406, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    6. Bradley, Joseph, 2008. "Management based critical success factors in the implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning systems," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 175-200.
    7. Garrison, Gary & Wakefield, Robin L. & Kim, Sanghyun, 2015. "The effects of IT capabilities and delivery model on cloud computing success and firm performance for cloud supported processes and operations," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 377-393.
    8. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Michael D. Williams & Vishanth Weerakkody, 2015. "Investigating success of an e-government initiative: Validation of an integrated IS success model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 127-142, February.
    9. Khire Rushikesh Ulhas & Jung-Yu Lai & Juite Wang, 2016. "Impacts of collaborative IS on software development project success in Indian software firms: a service perspective," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 315-336, May.
    10. Edgardo Bravo Orellana, 2015. "Automating and Informating: Roles to Examine in Technology’s Impact on Performance," Working Papers 15-17, Centro de Investigación, Universidad del Pacífico.
    11. Jeewon Cho & Insu Park, 2022. "Does Information Systems Support for Creativity Enhance Effective Information Systems Use and Job Satisfaction in Virtual Work?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1865-1886, December.
    12. Michael W. Makokha & Daniel O. Ochieng, 2014. "Assessing the Success of ICT¡¯s from a User Perspective: Case Study of Coffee Research Foundation, Kenya," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(4), pages 46-53, November.
    13. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    14. Yogesh K. Dwivedi & David Wastell & Sven Laumer & Helle Zinner Henriksen & Michael D. Myers & Deborah Bunker & Amany Elbanna & M. N. Ravishankar & Shirish C. Srivastava, 2015. "Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 143-157, February.
    15. Nicolas Jullien & Karine Roudaut, 2012. "Can Open Source projects succeed when the producers are not the users ? Lessons from the data processing field," Post-Print hal-01682500, HAL.
    16. Talukder, Md Shamim & Shen, Liang & Hossain Talukder, Md Farid & Bao, Yukun, 2019. "Determinants of user acceptance and use of open government data (OGD): An empirical investigation in Bangladesh," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 147-156.
    17. Davern, Michael J. & Wilkin, Carla L., 2010. "Towards an integrated view of IT value measurement," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 42-60.
    18. Ugljesa Marjanovic & Milan Delić & Bojan Lalic, 2016. "Developing a model to assess the success of e-learning systems: evidence from a manufacturing company in transitional economy," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 253-272, May.
    19. Kim, Changsu & Oh, Eunhae & Shin, Namchul & Chae, Myungsin, 2009. "An empirical investigation of factors affecting ubiquitous computing use and U-business value," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 436-448.
    20. Stockdale, Rosemary & Standing, Craig, 2006. "An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: A content, context, process framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1090-1102, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01461-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.