Namely, Evaluating the Structure of

¶ … namely, evaluating the structure of the research upon which scientific conclusion are drawn. The remainder of this review will be an analysis of a particular qualitative research investigation wherein a research investigator sought to determine "...capability development strategies differ between first-movers and late-entrants in it-enabled services (Mahnke, Zcan, & Overby, 2006, p.

189)." Qualitative research, unlike quantitative, is an investigative research activity that studies societal and/or cultural events, psychological, educational, or sociological phenomenon, or historical and philosophical trends that are described, not on the basis of numerical data, rather seeking to uncover and give meaning to events that are interpreted from the participants' perspective. As such qualitative research attempts to determine the tenor and characteristics of a particular group of people.

In most qualitative research endeavors the investigator attempts to build a theory of acceptance from the ground-up; thus the expression grounded theory.

The various methods of grounded theory included the following: Participant-Observation Ethnography Ethnomethodology Dramaturgical Interviewing Sociometry Natural Experiment Case Study Unobtrusive Measures Content Analysis Historiography Secondary Analysis of Data Most often the approach to a qualitative research activity is phenomenological in design wherein the research investigator attempts to determine the significance of the phenomenon being investigated through a determination of the structure and essence of the experiences of a group of individuals.

However, the research investigators of the research being evaluated chose the case study method upon which to draw their conclusions. As such the remainder of this report will focus on how well the research investigators followed best fit qualitative case study research with respect to their stated research question of "...how do capability development strategies differ between first-movers and late-entrants in it-enabled services (Mahnke, Zcan, & Overby, 2006, p.

189)?" Whether or not the question being presented is or is not broad enough is strictly dependent upon the timeliness and topic relevance of the two case studies being reviewed and evaluated. Upon review of the case studies with respect to online it brokerage market entry services (Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch) the authors chose two appropriate, visible, secure, and formidable entities upon which to base their investigation.

However, evaluating two companies and basing their conclusions on corporate data that is, in many instances nearly 10 years old does not make for best fit managerial decision making. In fact, at one point the authors referenced a situation wherein Charles Schwab exceeded Merrill Lynch with respect to Schwab at the forefront of it development in the brokerage business. Unfortunately the reference was based on 1998 information (See p. 195). In addition much of the other case related data such as the rise and fall of the Schwab vs.

Merrill Lynch online brokerage activity had little to do with the their being a first entrant or last entrant. Mention must be made as well with respect to the authors continued reference to the fall of dot.com discount brokerage firms. However, their relevance to the Schwab vs. Lynch scenario is poorly refined or applied. The data collected and presented by the authors, although extremely interesting, is based on secondary sources rather than primary, or at least not a blend of primary and secondary sources.

In fact on page 196 and 197 the authors ignore the cardinal rule of best fit research practice by discussing a particular situation wherein the authors paraphrased certain statements made by the co-CEO of Charles Schwab without any cited reference whatsoever. Further, they even quoted the co-CEO without proper citation. Particular attention must be given at this time to the authors' use of reference material. When one reviews the reference page it is interesting, and surprising, to note that not one citation mentions the words Charles Schwab or Merrill Lynch.

One must ask, therefore, how valid is the material being presented by the authors with respect to their discussion of each brokerage house? Additionally, even the secondary sources upon which the authors base their research study are extremely outdated and possibly irrelevant due to mega technological changes in the it industry in the last five years. As a result, analysis of the Charles Schwab vs. Merrill Lynch it brokerage data scenario is extremely suspect as to reliability and validity.

In other words, the overwhelming unanswered question is one of how authentic and accurate is the authors' data with respect to both brokerage houses when no part of the presentation was supported with.