RESEARCH ISSUES

SHAWNEE VICKERY, Feature Editor, Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University

Research on Quality: Recent Trends and Future Needs

by Laura B. Forker, School of Management, Boston University

Recent articles in Decision Line have discussed the need for additional empirical research in Operations Management (OM) (Vol. 25, No. 2) that makes a contribution to theoretical knowledge in the field (Vol. 26, No. 1). Theoretical knowledge has been clarified by distinguishing between theory building research (based on direct sense, practical experience) and theory testing research (the corroboration or refutation of a stated theory, using second source data and tests of internal and external validity) (Vol. 26, No. 2). The deficiency of empirical research methods in OM, other than survey research, has been noted as well (Vol. 26, No. 2).

One area of OM research that has been rising in popularity among Institute members is research regarding quality. For many years, articles about quality consisted of descriptions, anecdotes, and the toutings of quality gurus with neither theory building nor theory testing administered. Theoretical knowledge was scarce regarding quality practices and quality systems. In recent years, research on quality has mushroomed, leading the Decision Sciences Institute to establish a separate "Quality and Productivity" track at national and regional meetings. This leads to the following questions. Where have Institute members been directing their quality research efforts? Is the body of knowledge being built contributing to theory development and theory examination?

To answer these questions, first we scanned presentation titles and then Proceedings papers for all regular tracks at the Decision Sciences Institute's most recent national meetings (1991-95) to find papers related to quality. While the data source used is unscientific, secondary, and a convenience sample, the tabulations of topic area and methodology nevertheless provide a rough picture (however biased) of some recent trends in quality research. Table 1 presents a summary of methodologies used (1995 data are not yet available), while Table 2 categorizes papers by major topic area and selection status (competitively selected vs. invited). Totals in Table 1 are slightly higher than in Table 2 due to the use of multiple methodologies in a few papers.

Table 1 shows that the most popular methodology used by Institute members has been conceptual research. Almost half of all quality papers presented in 1993 and 1994 were conceptual. Survey-based studies have been rising in both numbers and proportion (percent of all quality papers presented at the national meeting) since 1992, while quality papers using mathematical modeling have been declining in importance over the same period. Simulation studies have fluctuated around 5 to 12 percent of all quality-related papers, while experiments using human subjects have accounted for 0 to 5 percent of accepted papers. Case studies of quality implementation have risen in number from zero (in 1991) to 13 (in 1994); studies using archival data have increased slightly from zero (1991) to four (1994). The use of interviews as a primary source of data collection has been insignificant, ranging from zero to two papers presented.

Presentations were also sorted into three general categories (Quality Management -Manufacturing, Service Quality, and Statistical Quality Control) and separated according to status (competitively selected or invited). Overall, the largest proportion of papers dealt with quality management (manufacturing) issues, with service quality the second most researched area, and statistical quality control the least popular area. The same general patterns were observed across competitively selected and invited papers.

While several of the survey-based papers were directed at theory testing, few quality papers in the Proceedings were aimed at theory building. Many papers appeared to be syntheses of quality research streams with no testable propositions drawn from the literature reviews. It appears that one of the greatest research needs in the area of quality is for studies devoted to theory building.

As Jack Meredith stated in an earlier "Research Issues" article, theory must be built from descriptions based on experience (Decision Line, Vol. 26, No. 2). Qualitative research methods are particularly well-suited to theory building. Qualitative research methods encompass a wide variety of explanatory procedures whose aim is to relate, decipher, interpret, and explain the substance of different events and realities in the social world (Mintzberg, 1979). Qualitative measurement does not rely on the assumption that the investigator knows all the pertinent characteristics and categories of an object of research ahead of time, but instead allows for the development and refining of concepts as the inquiry unfolds. It uses linguistic representations for elucidation rather than drawing meaning from aggregations and frequencies, in order to capture events (in an organization, for example) as the participants involved experience them. Mintzberg emphasized the importance of qualitative methods when he wrote:

Probably the greatest impediment to theory building in the study of organizations has been research that violates the organization, that forces it into abstract categories that have nothing to do with how it functions....As soon as the researcher insists on forcing the organization into abstract categoriesþinto his terms instead of its ownþhe is reduced to using perceptual measures, which often distort the reality. The researcher...can only ask people what they believe, on seven-point scales or the like. He gets answers, alright, ready for the computer; what he does not get is any idea of what he has measured....The result is sterile description, of organizations as categories of abstract variables instead of flesh-and-blood processes. (Mintzberg, 1979, pp. 585-586)

Qualitative research utilizes raw data that come from a source closer to the object of study. The data collection begins when a researcher defines a piece of time and space in the social world as his/her area of investigation. Data are gathered from this microcosm by moving as close to it as possible, both physically and intellectually. Fabricated distancing procedures such as analytic labeling, abstract hypothesizing, and predetermined research designs are used as little as possible. Intuition, personal experiences of the investigator, logic, and serendipity are all put to use in understanding and interpreting the data. Qualitative research is intended to illustrate the evolution of a living system (e.g., continuous improvement of organizational process quality) and not just its anatomy or features. Researchers give meaning to individual behaviors observed in the system once they have formulated a picture of the set of circumstances in which the behaviors occur and have endeavored to understand the behavior from the viewpoint of the initiator. To achieve this required extent of comprehension and compassion, the qualitative researcher must obtain firsthand, personal knowledge of the research environment.

In the introduction to an edition of Administrative Science Quarterly that was devoted to the study of qualitative research methods, John Van Maanen pointed to several crucial problems of organizational inquiry which could be mitigated by greater use of qualitative research methods (Van Maanen, 1979). The first one pointed out a widening gap between generalized behavioral principles and actual explanations given by participants in research studies for why they do the things they do. The second problem indicated was a growing cleavage between theoretical constructs and the available data used to test these theories. The third problem pointed to an escalating divergence between data manipulation techniques and the frameworks used to interpret their results; the former have become tighter, more complicated and mathematically sophisticated, and girded by stricter assumptions, while the latter have become looser, more dependent on chance, more changeable, and more open-ended. As research on product and process quality grows, these research design issues must be addressed in order to keep studies relevant to the organizational concerns the research is directed at.

The further investigators probe into organizational processes, technologies, and other variables that affect quality, the more apparent the complexity of these phenomena becomes. Qualitative methods can better capture the impact of this complexity than can quantitative measures that reduce an organization's multi-facted nature to a few manageable variables. Part of qualitative research is what Mintzberg (1979) calls "detective work"þthe search for patterns and recurring themes. This emphasizes the exploratory nature of a researcher's initial inquiry: watching, waiting, listening, feeling. The data collection can still be systematic and focused, but the researcher remains alert to any actions and angles he/she may not have considered before. A crucial second part of qualitative research is the "creative leap" (Mintzberg, 1979), whereby an investigator abstracts a theory from the data he/she has collected that generalizes beyond the particular organization(s) studied. But the creative leap can be made only when one has observed organizational life firsthand. One needs to understand the flows (relationships) in an organization as well as the stocks (variables); this understanding comes from direct observation.

Researchers must sort and sift through their findings in order to make some sense out of the raw material. The data an investigator collects and records are often symbolic, enigmatic, and/or contextually rooted. Qualitative research is intimately involved in identifying symbols, contexts and the like in order to see how participants perceive and react to them. Qualitative research tries to capture not only what respondents say but how they say it (i.e., what special language they are speaking in), what distinct patterns of thought and action they exhibit, and what unique conditions they may be operating under. Qualitative research holds great promise for advancing both the development and testing of theory that will ultimately help us understand the causes and effects of product and process quality in organizations.

References

Mintz berg, Henry. "An Emerging Strategy of 'Direct' Research," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 (December, 1979), pp. 582-589.

Piore, Michael J. "Qualitative Research Techniques in Economics," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 (December, 1979), pp. 560-569.

Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute. (Decision Sciences Institute: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994).

Van Maanen, John. "Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A Preface," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 (December, 1979), pp. 520-524.

LAURA B. FORKER is an Assistant Professor of Operations Management at Boston University. She received her Ph.D. in operations management from Arizona State University and her M.A. in economics from Indiana University. Her research focuses on efficiency and effectiveness issues in quality management, international trade, and international and domestic supply chain management. She co-chairs the International Issues track at the 1995 Decision Sciences Institute conference in Boston.

Dr. Shawnee Vickery
Department of Management
College of Business
239 Eppley Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-5415
fax: 517-336-1111