Table III Enhancing research quality of... | Emerald Publishing

Table III

Enhancing research quality of SAR: criteria, meaning and key choices

Quality criteriaa	Goals of AR and meaning^a	Recommendations for choices and actionsb	Example of service concept^b
Dialogic and process validity	The generation of new knowledge The “goodness” of research, as determined by peer review	AR must be seen as a collaborative inquiry (research team) Engage in reflective dialogue with peers (outside research team) Triangulation	Service providers Service managers Multilevel view of the service organization Service stakeholders
Outcome validity	The achievement of action-oriented outcomes	Results lead to desired outcome	New supplier service requirements lead to transformation of the supplier base
Catalytic validity	The education of both researcher and participants Concerns the transformative potential of action research The research process reorients, focuses and energizes participants and researchers toward knowing reality to transform it (Lather, 1986)	Open for changes: Researchers/practitioners must be open to reorienting their view of reality and their own role Cyclical research design: Build research design on an iterative process that encourages changes in researchers’/participants’ understandings. Keep a journal or a protocol, recording actions and changes. Example: Collect and evaluate process data before and after process redesigns	Service process redesign Service improvements
Democratic validity	Results are relevant to the local setting/the needs of the problem context “…the extent to which research is done in collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investigation”	Protocols proofread, discussed and agreed upon by all parties Reflection and feedback sessions with relevant participants A series of small/incremental tests rather than one test at the end of the research process	Service stakeholders Customers and users Service modularity and value co-creation (require input from different functions)
Process validity	A sound and appropriate research methodology Results must be generated through cycles of reflections and ongoing problematization of the practices that are being studied Frame and solve problems in a manner that permits the ongoing learning of the individual or system	Establish good face-to-face relationships with participants Take a broad view of the evidence, but define and record it carefully. Relate this to how frameworks and variables change during the study Triangulation	A collaborative process for service improvement

Quality criteriaa	Goals of AR and meaning^a	Recommendations for choices and actionsb	Example of service concept^b
Dialogic and process validity	The generation of new knowledgeThe “goodness” of research, as determined by peer review	AR must be seen as a collaborative inquiry (research team)Engage in reflective dialogue with peers (outside research team)Triangulation	Service providersService managersMultilevel view of the service organizationService stakeholders
Outcome validity	The achievement of action-oriented outcomes	Results lead to desired outcome	New supplier service requirements lead to transformation of the supplier base
Catalytic validity	The education of both researcher and participantsConcerns the transformative potential of action researchThe research process reorients, focuses and energizes participants and researchers toward knowing reality to transform it (Lather, 1986)	Open for changes: Researchers/practitioners must be open to reorienting their view of reality and their own roleCyclical research design: Build research design on an iterative process that encourages changes in researchers’/participants’ understandings. Keep a journal or a protocol, recording actions and changes. Example: Collect and evaluate process data before and after process redesigns	Service process redesignService improvements
Democratic validity	Results are relevant to the local setting/the needs of the problem context“…the extent to which research is done in collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investigation”	Protocols proofread, discussed and agreed upon by all partiesReflection and feedback sessions with relevant participantsA series of small/incremental tests rather than one test at the end of the research process	Service stakeholdersCustomers and usersService modularity and value co-creation (require input from different functions)
Process validity	A sound and appropriate research methodologyResults must be generated through cycles of reflections and ongoing problematization of the practices that are being studiedFrame and solve problems in a manner that permits the ongoing learning of the individual or system	Establish good face-to-face relationships with participantsTake a broad view of the evidence, but define and record it carefully. Relate this to how frameworks and variables change during the studyTriangulation	A collaborative process for service improvement

Notes:

^aBased on Herr and Anderson (2005). ^bPopulated based on the papers that are reviewed in this study, based on Columns 1 and 2