帮写dissertation论文栏目提供最新帮写dissertation论文格式、帮写dissertation硕士论文范文。详情咨询QQ:1847080343(论文辅导)

英国dissertation毕业论文挂了该怎么办

日期:2020年03月02日 编辑:ad200904242025371901 作者:无忧论文网 点击次数:10679
论文价格:免费 论文编号:lw202002292045044269 论文字数:12937 所属栏目:帮写dissertation论文
论文地区:其他 论文语种:中文 论文用途:论文写作指导 Instruction
ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree (1-7) and such questions were complemented by more open-ended questions lending themselves well to the thematic discussion presented in chapter four. Various different scale items were bought together when designing the questionnaire and such scale items were derived from a detailed examination of the literature presented in chapter two.


Working closely with key contacts in firms where the researcher had a personal connection, responses were collected from a member of the strategy department or senior management team (SMT) in each firm (Bernard & Bernard, 2012). The data was collected across industries in order to capture a range of perspectives and this ensured access was not limited to any one population. To be involved in the research, firms had to have undertaken a strategic alliance in the last 1-5 years, something central to this research to ensure participants were best placed to contribute to the research. The questionnaire focused upon measuring knowledge and learning transfers within the strategic alliance setting, the challenges associated with this process and the link between knowledge transfers and competitive success. Knowledge transfers are considered to be highly valuable and as such there was a need to focus upon the way in which a strategic alliance can facilitate positive knowledge transfers in order to develop a sustainable position in the dynamic, Chinese environment (Teece, 2009) The questionnaire was therefore intended to understand the nature of knowledge transfers and support networks for such to take place to feed this into the recommendations developed.


As a research instrument, questionnaires have a number of advantages including perhaps most importantly that they are easy to administer and allow for a larger sample to be gained than more qualitative research instruments where human interaction is needed e.g. interviews. Their simplicity in administration allows for a greater sample population to be gained. However, as with all research instruments they also have limitations which include their inadequacy at allowing for more detailed responses, missed responses and subjectivity. To try and limit their disadvantages where possible the mixed methods approach has been employed to blend together qualitative and quantitative approaches. This methodology thus facilitates an approach which allows weaknesses to be reduced and thus strengths the quality of the research produced.


The questionnaire consisted of 12 questions in total and the liker scale questions were based on a 7-point scale, which ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. A 7-point scale was used in order to avoid a dominance of the mid ground, which is commonly recognised as a weakness of more traditional 5-point scales (Bryman & Bell, 2015).


3.4.1 Sample Questionnaire Scale Items*:


Decision making within the firm is a firm wide process involving all employees where possible.

Employee learning is encouraged between firms.

Errors and mistakes are always discussed and used to learn.

Employees have the chance to talk across the alliance and use this to develop new ideas and creativity within the firm.

The firm has instruments in place that facilitate knowledge transfers e.g. mixed department meetings.

There is a good deal of organisational conversation between the two firms.

The company has acquired new and valuable knowledge from the other firm.

The company has learnt or acquired some form of critical capability they did not have before.

The alliance has helped the company to develop their skills and the overall learning of employees.

*Please see appendix A for a full copy of the questionnaire.


In support of the above likert scale questions 3 open-ended questions were put to the research participants. These open-ended questions were used to capture a greater level of detail, which could be linked back to the literature but also used to shape the key themes presented in the discussion. The first