Abstract

This study on the methodology of conducting the research process indicates the scarcity of an empirical approach to a problem of quality of the research process. In this paper, the determinants of the quality of the research process in the management sciences were examined. The authors employed the commonly used principal component analysis (PCA), also known as factor analysis. Furthermore, the article presents a holistic, structured and configurable framework that would result in the construction of an appropriate research methodology. The research work carried out within the discipline of management sciences must be embedded both in terms of theory and practice. Although the management sciences are most often treated as applied or practical sciences,  they also undertake theoretical research in their scope, because no science can develop without theoretical research. This paper aims to identify the factors influencing the quality of the research process as the complementary elements to the contemporary methodological approaches. The analysis of the domestic and foreign scientific background, as well as the drawn conclusions, turned on the modifications introduced over the years in the management methods. The management methodology is constantly expanding by new methods, the latter being of diverse cognitive and practical effectiveness. The constant growth of diagnostic instruments has been dependent, mainly, on changes occurring in the environment. Moreover, it is connected to the need to make use of more sophisticated and effective tools. The article focused on meta-analysis as a research process and qualitative approach to the research process on the example of research results. Empirical research confirms the existence of factors that constitute a criterion supporting the assessment of the quality of the conducted research process. In the management sciences, the quality of the research process is defined as verifying the degree of implementation and consistency of the objectives of the work following the research problem and conclusions.

Keywords: meta-analysis, management, research, determinants, quality, empirical approach

JEL Classification: C00, D00, E00.

Cite as: Dzwigol, H. (2021). Meta-analysis in management and quality sciences. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 324-335. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.1-25

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37(1), 5-38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Arefieva, O., Polous, O., Arefiev, S., Tytykalo, V., & Kwilinski, A. (2021). Managing sustainable development by human capital reproduction in the system of company’s organizational behaviour. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 628. [Google Scholar]
3. Barker, A., Spackman, N., & Nancarrow, C. (2001). Informed eclecticism: a research paradigm for the 21st century. International journal of market research, 43(1), 1-21. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
4. Bogachov, S., Kwilinski, A., Miethlich, B., Bartosova, V., & Gurnak, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence components and fuzzy regulators in entrepreneurship development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(2), 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Boiko, V., Kwilinski, A., Misiuk, M., & Boiko, L. (2019). Competitive Advantages of Wholesale Markets of Agricultural Products as a Type of Entrepreneurial Activity: The Experience of Ukraine and Poland. Economic Annals-XXI, 175(1-2), 68-72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R. (Eds.). (2017). Doing a Systematic Review: A Student′s Guide. London, UK: Sage. [Google Scholar]
7. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qualitative research, 6(1), 97-113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Chen, J., Yin, X., & Mei, L. (2018). Holistic innovation: an emerging innovation paradigm. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 2(1), 1-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Coghlan, D., & Shani, A .B. (2016). Action Research in Business and Management (Fundamentals of Applied Research). London, UK: Sage. [Google Scholar]
10. Cooke, R.B. (2003). Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
11. Cooper, H. (2010). Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis: A Step-by-step Approach. London, UK: Sage. [Google Scholar]
12. Cyfert, S., Glabiszewski, W., Krzakiewicz, K., & Zastempowski, M. (2020). The Importance of Dynamic Capabilities in the Processes of Alignment of Chemical Industry Enterprises to Changes in the Environment. Przemysl Chemiczny, 99(6), 953-956. 
13. Czakon, W., Kawa, A., & Scott, S. (2020). Network orientation of logistics service providers: the construct, dimensionality and measurement scale. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 23(5), 474-492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Dalevska, N., Khobta, V., Kwilinski, A., & Kravchenko, S. (2019). A model for estimating social and economic indicators of sustainable development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Dementyev, V. V., & Kwilinski, A. (2020). Institutional component of production costs. Journal of Institutional Studies, 12(1), 100-116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Denzin, N. (1970). The Research Act: Theorethical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Chicago, US: Aldine. [Google Scholar]
18. Dincer, S. (2018). Content Analysis in Scientific Research: Meta-Analysis, Meta-Synthesis, and Descriptive Content Analysis. Bartın Universitesi Eğitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 7(1), 176-190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Dyduch, W. (2019a). Entrepreneurial strategy stimulating value creation: Conceptual findings and some empirical tests. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(3), 65-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Dyduch, W. (2019b). Organizational design supporting innovativeness. Przegląd Organizacji, (6), 16-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Dzwigol, H., Aleinikova, O., Umanska, Y., Shmygol, N., & Pushak, Y. (2019a). An entrepreneurship model for assessing the investment attractiveness of regions. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1). [Google Scholar]
22. Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., Miśkiewicz, R., & Kwilinski, A. (2020). Manager competency assessment model in the conditions of industry 4.0. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., Zhyvko, Z., Miśkiewicz, R., & Pushak, H. (2019b). Evaluation of the energy security as a component of national security of the country. Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues, 8(3). [Google Scholar]
24. Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed-and random-effects methods. Psychological methods, 6(2), 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Fikrat-Wevers, S., van Steensel, R., & Arends, L. (2021). Effects of Family Literacy Programs on the Emergent Literacy Skills of Children From Low-SES Families: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 1-37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Fojud, A., Boniecki, P., Zaborowicz, M., Lisiak, D., Ślosarz, P., Stanisz, M., … & Konieczny, A. (2017). Project of a computer system supporting extraction of the characteristics of pork half-carcases. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 62(3). [Google Scholar]
27. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational researcher, 5(10), 3-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Gondek, A., & Mazur, K. (2014). Metodyka metaanalizy w naukach o zarządzaniu. In W. Czakon (Ed.), Podstawy metodologii badań w naukach o zarządzaniu (pp. 122-133). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Business. [Google Scholar]
29. Gorynia, M. (2019). Competition and globalisation in economic sciences. Selected aspects. Economics and Business Review, 5(3). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Gorynia, M., Trąpczyński, P., & Bytniewski, S. (2019). The concepts of strategy and business models in firm internationalization research: Towards a research agenda. International Entrepreneurship Review, 5(2), 7-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Grudzewski, W. M., & Hejduk, I. (2006). Wspolczesne kierunki rozwoju nauk o zarządzaniu. Prace Naukowe Instytutu Organizacji i Zarządzania Politechniki Wroclawskiej. Studia i Materialy, 79(21), 283-298. [Google Scholar]
32. Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175-182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Harrington, H. J., & Voehl, F. (Eds.). (2016). The Innovation Tools Handbook, Volume 1: Organizational and Operational Tools, Methods, and Techniques that Every Innovator Must Know. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
34. Heesen, R., Bright, L. K., & Zucker, A. (2019). Vindicating methodological triangulation. Synthese, 196(8), 3067-3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Holmes, B. J., Finegood, D. T., Riley, B. L., & Best, A. (2012). Systems thinking and dissemination and implementation research. In R.C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, and E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
36. Hung, C. K. (2019). Knowledge Advancement in Nonprofit and Public Management Research The Potential of Meta-Analysis. Tempe, USA: Arizona State University. [Google Scholar]
37. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2015). Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
38. Joslin, R., & Muller, R. (2016). Identifying interesting project phenomena using philosophical and methodological triangulation. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6), 1043-1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Kharazishvili, Y., Kwilinski, A., Grishnova, O., & Dzwigol, H. (2020). Social Safety of Society for Developing Countries to Meet Sustainable Development Standards: Indicators, Level, Strategic Benchmarks (with Calculations Based on the Case Study of Ukraine). Sustainability, 12(21), 8953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 43(6), 740-755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Kostera, M. (2003) Antropologia organizacji. Metodologia badań terenowych. Warszawa: PWN.
42. Kozmiński, K.A. (2011). Reaktywacja. Warszawa: Poltext.
43. Kuzior, A., Kwilinski, A., & Tkachenko, V. (2019). Sustainable development of organizations based on the combinatorial model of artificial intelligence. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(2), 1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Kwilinski, A. (2018a). Mechanism of formation of industrial enterprise development strategy in the information economy. Virtual Economics, 1(1), 7-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Kwilinski, A., & Kuzior, A. (2020). Cognitive Technologies in the Management and Formation of Directions of the Priority Development of Industrial Enterprises. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 28(2), 133-138. [Google Scholar] [ossRefCr]
46. Kwilinski, A., Drobyazko, S., & Derevyanko, B. (2019). Synergetic and Value Effects in Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions of International Companies. In Proceedings of the 34th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA) (pp. 13-14). [Google Scholar]
47. Kwilinski, A., Vyshnevskyi, O., & Dzwigol, H. (2020a). Digitalization of the EU Economies and People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(7), 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Kwilinski, A., Zaloznova, Y., Trushkina, N., & Rynkevych, N. (2020b). Organizational and methodological support for Ukrainian coal enterprises marketing activity improvement. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 168, p. 00031). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Kwilinski, А., Shteingauz, D., & Maslov, V. (2020c). Financial and credit instruments for ensuring effective functioning of the residential real estate market. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 3(34), 131-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Kyrylov, Y., Hranovska, V., Boiko, V., Kwilinski, A., & Boiko, L. (2020). International Tourism Development in the Context of Increasing Globalization Risks: On the Example of Ukraine’s Integration into the Global Tourism Industry. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(12), 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Labarca, C. (2017). Qualitative Research for beginners. Maracaibo, Venezuela: University of Zulia.
52. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
53. Ludeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. (2017). Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1668-1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., Kwilinski, A., Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., Pavlyk, V., & Barosz, P. (2021). The Impact of the Government Policy on the Energy Efficient Gap: The Evidence from Ukraine. Energies, 14(2), 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Madsen, D. Ø., & Slatten, K. (2019). Examining the emergence and evolution of Blue Ocean Strategy through the lens of management fashion theory. Social Sciences, 8(1), 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Melnychenko, O. (2019). Application of artificial intelligence in control systems of economic activity. Virtual Economics, 2(3), 30-40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Melnychenko, O. (2020). Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Assess an Enterprise’s Financial Security?. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(9), 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Melnychenko, O. (2021). The Energy of Finance in Refining of Medical Surge Capacity. Energies, 14(1), 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Merigo, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37-48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Meyer, K., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2017). What’s in ap?: Reassessing best practices for reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), 48(5), 535-551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Miśkiewicz, R. (2019). Challenges facing management practice in the light of Industry 4.0: The example of Poland. Virtual Economics, 2(2), 37-47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Miskiewicz, R. (2020a). Internet of Things in Marketing: Bibliometric Analysis. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 371-381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Miśkiewicz, R. (2020b). Efficiency of Electricity Production Technology from Post-Process Gas Heat: Ecological, Economic and Social Benefits. Energies, 13(22), 6106. [CrossRef] [CrossRef]
64. Miśkiewicz, R., & Wolniak, R. (2020). Practical Application of the Industry 4.0 Concept in a Steel Company. Sustainability, 12(14), 5776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23-48. [Google Scholar]
66. Oesterreich, T. D., Schuir, J., & Teuteberg, F. (2020). The Emperor’s New Clothes or an Enduring IT Fashion? Analyzing the Lifecycle of Industry 4.0 through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory. Sustainability, 12(21), 8828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks. Cal.: Sage Publications, 4.
68. Pyrczak, F. (2016). Writing empirical research reports: A basic guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences. London, UK: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
69. Quinlan, Ch., Babin, B., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2019). Business Research Methods. 2nd Edition. Mason. OH: South Western Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
70. Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1-5. [Google Scholar]
71. Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1987). Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 316(8), 450-455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Sagan, A. (2009). Metaanaliza danych w marketingu zorientowanym na dowody – orientacja kliniczna w badaniach rynkowych i marketingowych. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wroclawiu, 51. 114-124. [Google Scholar]
73. Sauerbrei, W., & Blettner, M. (2003). Issues of traditional reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in medical research. Meta-analysis: new development and applications in medical and social science. Munchen: Hogrefe & Huber. 
74. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., … & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & quantity, 52(4), 1893-1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2013). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
76. Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in medicine, 18(20), 2693-2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Tkachenko, V., Kwilinski, A., Kaminska, B., Tkachenko, I., & Puzyrova, P. (2019a). Development and effectiveness of financial potential management of enterprises in modern conditions. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 3(30), 85-94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Tkachenko, V., Kwilinski, A., Klymchuk, M., & Tkachenko, I. (2019b). The Economic-Mathematical Development of Buildings Construction Model Optimization on the Basis of Digital Economy. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 2, 119-123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Trajer, J., Paszek, A., & Iwan, S. (2012). Zarządzanie wiedzą. Warszawa: PWE.
80. Vaivio, J., & Sirén, A. (2010). Insights into method triangulation and “paradigms” in interpretive management accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 130-141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Vazquez, F. L., Otero, P., García-Casal, J. A., Blanco, V., Torres, A. J., & Arrojo, M. (2018). Efficacy of video game-based interventions for active aging. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 13(12), e0208192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866-881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Кwilinski, A. (2018b). Mechanism of Modernization of Industrial Sphere of Industrial Enterprise in Accordance with Requirements of the Information Economy. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 116-128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]