Introduction
A study “More Than an Answer: Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge” by Cross and Sproull (2004) analyzes the correlation between employees’ relations and their importance to gathering knowledge for work. The authors present a clear motivation, basing their research on the fact that scholars studying actionable knowledge often overlook the process of finding information from other people. The research question is also stated at the beginning of the paper, which aims to “investigate how personal sources of information contribute to actionable knowledge” (Cross & Sproull, 2004, p. 446).
This question can be interesting to managers of different specialties and levels as it directly correlates to their work. It can help them understand which connections do they use to obtain information and which types of learning can be promoted to workers in their company. The introduction to this article analyzes data from existing research and motivates the audience to continue reading the study. I found myself getting interested in this research after reading the first page.
Theory
The presented article has two distinct parts because it employs both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The first part deals with qualitative descriptions of the topic and creates a theoretical framework from the gathered data. The second part uses the developed framework to outline and analyze a number of hypotheses. The first part and the beginning of the second one are devoted to the discussion of theories that can be used for this analysis. Therefore, the study’s framework is well-developed.
The core concepts of the article are defined adequately. First of all, the authors note that people’s interpersonal relationships are the basis of this research as they argue about their major role in information gathering (Cross & Sproull, 2004). Second, the researchers outline multiple hypotheses based on this belief and focus on their findings as to the foundation for further analysis. The logic behind the predictions is persuasive as the authors devote much time to explaining every statement and arguing for its viability. There are many references presented in the theoretical part of the study, and authors present their hypotheses in a logical way, deriving one statement from another.
Method
As this paper uses two methodologies, each of them has its distinct characteristics. The qualitative part of the article employs interviews as the primary method of gathering data. Here, the sample of participants is rather large for a qualitative study, as the authors interview 40 respondents from one firm (Cross & Sproull, 2004). The quantitative research uses a stratified survey to address the proposed statements.
The questions presented in the survey directly correspond to the outlined hypotheses. For instance, the authors’ decision to ask participants about their coworkers and their role in information gathering contributes to the hypothesis “information seeker expertise will be positively related to receipt of referrals, problem reformulation, and validation” (Cross & Sproull, 2004, p. 452). Other statements align with the questions in a similar way.
The presented independent variables are the source of data, the seeker of information, and their connection (Cross & Sproull, 2004). The dependent variables are derived from the first part of the study, as they deal with the five elements of actionable knowledge found by authors: solutions, legitimation, referrals, validation, and problem reformulation (Cross & Sproull, 2004). These variables are included in the hypotheses. Thus, they seem appropriate to use in this study. The method of data collection also seems logical as it allows authors to address their suggestions and theoretical framework in equal measures. The randomized sampling of participants increases the study’s credibility, although all individuals work in one company. The findings can be generalized to some extent. They have external validity.
The bias of using one firm is acknowledged by the authors, who argue that it does not affect the findings significantly. Moreover, they claim that it can improve the results because the authors can easily establish connections between workers and understand their relationships. The internal validity may suffer from using a small sample of people who represent only one company, but their example can be used in other firms with similar structures. The analytical techniques used in the study are appropriate to their aims because they concentrate on the outlined hypotheses.
Results
The results are explained in detail and presented in the form of a table. Furthermore, the authors discuss each finding and link it to the existing hypotheses. However, it could be possible for the authors to add some visuals to present their findings in a more approachable way. As the study employs a quantitative methodology, authors do not leave much freedom of interpretation for the final results and present the data without any alternative explanations of the findings. The measures introduced by the authors seem to be adequately appropriated to yield understandable and logical conclusions.
Contribution
The authors argue that their study can help managers and workers to understand the ways in which they gather information for their projects. The value of the findings is outlined in the final part of the paper. Cross and Sproull (2004) state that this research is vital to managers because they can review the quality of their personal networks and create more advantageous business relationships. This study can stipulate a discussion about relations that workers have with their peers and superiors. Moreover, it can contribute to the ways people view social networks and their significance in business settings.
Reference
Cross, R., & Sproull, L. (2004). More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization Science, 15(4), 446-462.