Suchergebnisse

The challenge of finding appropriate tools for measurement validation is an abiding concern in political science. This article considers four traditions of validation, using examples from cross-national research on democracy: the levels-of-measurement approach, structural-equation modeling with latent variables, the pragmatic tradition, and the case-based method. Methodologists have sharply disputed the merits of alternative traditions. We encourage scholars -- and certainly analysts of democracy -- to pay more attention to these disputes and to consider strengths and weaknesses in the validation tools they adopt. An online appendix summarizes the evaluation of six democracy data sets from the perspective of alternative approaches to validation. The overall goal is to open a new discussion of alternative validation strategies. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

The challenge of finding appropriate tools for measurement validation is an abiding concern in political science. This article considers four traditions of validation, using examples from cross-national research on democracy: the levels-of-measurement approach, structural-equation modeling with latent variables, the pragmatic tradition, and the case-based method. Methodologists have sharply disputed the merits of alternative traditions. We encourage scholars—and certainly analysts of democracy—to pay more attention to these disputes and to consider strengths and weaknesses in the validation tools they adopt. An online appendix summarizes the evaluation of six democracy data sets from the perspective of alternative approaches to validation. The overall goal is to open a new discussion of alternative validation strategies.

ABSTRACTThe use of radio frequency identification (RFID) versus bar coding has been debated with little quantitative research about how to best use RFID's capabilities and when RFID is more advantageous. This article responds to that need by qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing how RFID facilitates increased traceability and control in manufacturing, which in turn enables the use of more lot splitting and smaller lot sizes. We develop insights about operating policies (RFID vs. bar‐code tracking mechanisms, extent of lot splitting, and dispatching rules) and an operating condition (setup to processing time ratio) that affect the mean flow time and proportion of jobs tardy in a job shop. A simulation model is used to control factors in the experimental design and the output is evaluated using analysis of variance. The results show the following: (i) performance worsens when bar coding is used with extensive lot splitting, (ii) process changes such as extensive lot splitting may be required to justify RFID use instead of bar coding, (iii) the earliest operation due date dispatching rule offers an attractive alternative to other rules studied in previous lot splitting research, and (iv) the performance improvements with RFID and increased lot splitting are larger when the setup to processing time ratio is smaller. In a broader context, we fill a research void by quantitatively showing how RFID can be used as an advanced manufacturing technology that enables more factory automation and better performance along several dimensions. The article concludes by summarizing the results and identifying ideas for future research.

ABSTRACTService guarantees consist of a promise to a customer (marketing), the delivery of a service to the customer (operations), and actions to appease the customer when service failures happen (recovery). A part of recovery involves offering the customer an economic and/or noneconomic payout when things go wrong. When the economic payout is too high or low, the impact on the organization and the customer is usually negative. Therefore, determining the size of the economic payout is of critical strategic and tactical importance in businesses. Yet, no systematic quantitative methods are found in the literature to help managers determine the economic payout for service failures. The current ways an economic payout is determined are management judgment, the consensus of customer focus groups, competitive benchmarking, and the use of simple expected value methods. In this article, we define the Economic Payout Model for Service Guarantees (EPMSG) that provides an optimal service guarantee economic payout under certain conditions. The EPMSG and its objective function considers customer revenue over the short‐ and long‐term, the cost of creating and providing the service, the cost of recovery, the probability of a service failure, and the probability of customer retention as a function of economic payout. A numerical example is provided of how EPMSG works. Customer retention probability distributions are examined assuming normal and gamma distributions. We end the article by describing the theoretical contributions, model limitations, managerial implications, and opportunities for future research.

Scholars routinely make claims that presuppose the validity of the observations and measurements that operationalize their concepts. Yet, despite recent advances in political science methods, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to measurement validity. We address this gap by exploring four themes. First, we seek to establish a shared framework that allows quantitative and qualitative scholars to assess more effectively, and communicate about, issues of valid measurement. Second, we underscore the need to draw a clear distinction between measurement issues and disputes about concepts. Third, we discuss the contextual specificity of measurement claims, exploring a variety of measurement strategies that seek to combine generality and validity by devoting greater attention to context. Fourth, we address the proliferation of terms for alternative measurement validation procedures and offer an account of the three main types of validation most relevant to political scientists.

Scholars routinely make claims that presuppose the validity of the observations & measurements that operationalize their concepts. Yet, despite recent advances in political science methods, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to measurement validity. We address this gap by exploring four themes. First, we seek to establish a shared framework that allows quantitative & qualitative scholars to assess more effectively, & communicate about, issues of valid measurement. Second, we underscore the need to draw a clear distinction between measurement issues & disputes about concepts. Third, we discuss the contextual specificity of measurement claims, exploring a variety of measurement strategies that seek to combine generality & validity by devoting greater attention to context. Fourth, we address the proliferation of terms for alternative measurement validation procedures & offer an account of the three main types of validation most relevant to political scientists. 128 References. Adapted from the source document.

▪ Abstract  Prominent scholars engaged in comparative research on democratic regimes are in sharp disagreement over the choice between a dichotomous or graded approach to the distinction between democracy and nondemocracy. This choice is substantively important because it affects the findings of empirical research. It is methodologically important because it raises basic issues, faced by both qualitative and quantitative analysts, concerning appropriate standards for justifying choices about concepts. In our view, generic claims that the concept of democracy should inherently be treated as dichotomous or graded are incomplete. The burden of demonstration should instead rest on more specific arguments linked to the goals of research. We thus take the pragmatic position that how scholars understand and operationalize a concept can and should depend in part on what they are going to do with it. We consider justifications focused on the conceptualization of democratization as an event, the conceptual requirements for analyzing subtypes of democracy, the empirical distribution of cases, normative evaluation, the idea of regimes as bounded wholes, and the goal of achieving sharper analytic differentiation.