Sufficient Evidence and Bias in Research

Customer Service

In their peer-reviewed study Lee and Lee (2020) show that “untact,” i.e., online exchanges, as opposed to “contact,” i.e., face-to-face exchanges in a brick-and-mortar store, are increasingly part of the new normal of shopping and customer service. The authors show that even restaurants are resorting to untact customer service, providing customers with kiosks for order food instead of relying on waitresses, waiters, etc. The idea of “untact” comes from the concept of “no contact” described in a prior study by Kim et al. (2018). No contact customer service is presented in the article by Lee and Lee (2020) as the new mode of customer service for the foreseeable future now that the digital age is firmly here to stay.

The authors conclude, based on their assessment of the data that they obtain in their study, that so long as the technology is not too complicated to use, customers may go along with untact service. However, if the technology is too complicated to use, customers would prefer a more traditional face-to-face contact for customer service (Lee & Lee, 2020). The authors do also point out the limitations of the study based on the lack of literature available on the subject and the lack of a theoretical framework developed for understanding this new type of customer service.

Because the authors identify and discuss the limitations of their own study they appear to be well-positioned to address potential bias issues. Understanding limitations is a good way to understand whether errors in reasoning or issues with insufficient evidence have also played a part in the author’s conclusions. When discussing research, it is important to consider limitations in order to establish credibility and remove bias. One common limitation is sample size, which can affect the validity of results. A small sample size may not be representative of the population as a whole, and results may not be generalizable. Another potential limitation is selection bias, which can occur when participants are not randomly selected from the population. This can lead to results that are not accurate or representative. Finally, recall bias is a limitation that can occur when participants remember events differently than they actually happened. This can skew results and lead to inaccurate conclusions. By considering these potential limitations, researchers can establish credibility and remove bias from their work.

I did not detect any kind of biases like the above-mentioned in the article by Lee and Lee (2020) as the authors are upfront about the limitations associated with their research but also did a good job of addressing issues, too. The only thing that I can compare my findings on this topic to is my own experience with untact customer service, and it is precisely as Lee & Lee (2020) describe in their conclusion: I do not mind untact customer service at all—so long as it works. If it is too complicated or bogs down and does not help me to achieve what I want then I would definitely prefer a person-to-person encounter. On the plus side, no-contact customer service is typically more efficient than traditional methods, as it eliminates the need for customers to wait on hold or be transferred to multiple representatives. Additionally, automated systems can often provide more accurate and up-to-date information than a human agent. However, some customers prefer the personal touch of speaking with a live person, and may find automated systems to be impersonal and frustrating. In addition, No-contact customer service may not be able to handle more complex issues that require a human touch. Ultimately, the pros and cons of no-contact customer service will vary depending on the needs of the individual customer.