Understanding Different Issues of Unit of Analysis in a Business Research

Author(s)

Dr Sanjay Kumar

Affiliations

Dean-Academics (Associate Professor) New Era College of Science and Technology Ghaziabad, India

Abstract

The main aim of the paper was to understand the different issues of unit of analysis in a business research. The qualitative approach was used to explore the different issues related to unit of analysis through in-depth review of literature. In this paper different levels of unit of analysis are described. The relation between the unit of analysis and unit of observation is explained. Faulty reasoning about the unit of analysis is discussed with suitable examples. The possible data analysis options are discussed taking into consideration the unit of analysis. This paper will be a good reference material for new researchers in understanding the unit of analysis for the planning and designing their research work at master’s and doctorate level.

Keywords

Ecological Fallacy, Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Reductionalism, Social Artifacts, Unit of Analysis, Unit of Sampling and Unit of Observation.

References

1. Babbie, E. (2005). The Basics of Social Research. Thomson Wadsworth, Canada.
2. Beaubien, J.M., Hamman, W.R., Holt, R.W., & Boehm Davis, D.A. (2001). The application of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) techniques to commercial aviation research. Proceedings of the 11th annual symposium on aviation psychology, Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
3. Blalock & Hubert, M.J. (1972). Social Statistics. New York: McGraw–Hill Book Co., Inc.
4. Boessen, Adam; Hipp, John, R.; Smith, Emily J.; Butts, Carter T.; Nagle & Nicholas, N. (2014). ‘Networks, Space, and Residents’ Perception of Cohesion’. American Journal of Community Psychology. Blackwell Science Ltd. 53 (3-4), pp. 447–461.
5. Chapais, B. & Berman, C.M. (2004). Kinship and Behavior in Primates. Oxford University Press, p. 478.
6. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality, Psychological Science 18 (10), Sage Publications
7. Douma, S. & Schreuder, H. (2013). Economic Approaches to Organizations. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
8. Feldman, M.S. & Pentland, B.T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change, Administrative Science Quarterly, Sage Publications.
9. Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2001). The Sociological Foundation of Organizational Learning, in M. Dierkes, J. Child and I. Nonaka, Handbook of Organizational Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Hasmath, R.; Hildebrandt, T. & Hsu, J. (2016). ‘Conceptualizing Government-Organized Non-Government Organizations in International Affairs’. Paper Presented at Development Studies Association Annual Meeting. Oxford, UK.
11. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/social- artifacts/57713
12. John, L. & Lofland, L. (1995). Analysing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Thomson Wadsworth, Canada.
13. Kenny, D.A. (1996). The design and analysis of social-interaction research. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp. 59-86.
14. Kenny, D.A., & Judd, C.M. (1986). The consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, pp. 422-431.
15. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology.In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey, Hand Book of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 233-265. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
16. Lewis, M.S., Bryman, A. & Liao,T.F. (2004). Unit of Analysis. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Sage Publications.
17. Lim, Putnam, C. & Robert, D. (2010). Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 75(6), pp. 914–933.
18. Moody, J. & White, Douglas, R. (2003). Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups. American Sociological Review, American Sociological Association, 68(1), pp. 103–127.
19. Neuman, W.L. (2006). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Education.
20. Platow, M.J., Grace, D.M. & Smithson, M.J. (2011). Examining the Preconditions for Psychological Group Membership: Perceived Social Interdependence as the Outcome of Self-Categorization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(1).
21. Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22. Reicher, S.D. (1982). The determination of collective behaviour (pp. 41-83). In H.Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Richard J.W. (1981). The pragmalinguistic analysis of narrative texts. Gunter Narr Verlag.
24. Robinson, W.S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behaviour of individuals. Americal Sociological Review, 15, pp. 351-357.
25. Rosenberg, M. (1968). Introduction: ‘The Meaning of Relationships’, from The Logic of Survey Analysis, Basic Books Inc., Publishers, New York.
26. Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. (1988). Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York.
27. Susan A.W. (2005). The Handbook of Group Research and Practice. SAGE, p.122.
28. Trochim, W.M. (2006). The research methods knowledge base. From: http://www. socialresearchmethods.net/kb/.
29. Turner, J.C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social identity and intergroup relations, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-40.
30. Waltz, K.N. (2001). Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press.
31. Wartofsky, Marx W. (1979). Models: Representation and scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
32. Webster’s Online Dictionary – With Multilingual Thesaurus Translation. Webster’s Online Dictionary.
33. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Yin, R.K. (2009). Introduction. Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5.
35. Yurdusev, A.N. (1993). Level of Analysis and Unit of Analysis: A Case for Distinction, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 22(1), pp. 77–88.