Unit of analysis

What's your unit of analysis?

That was the coffee time question posed by our Resident Questioning Student. He often starts interesting discussions. I'd naïvely thought it a simple answer, but the more he posed questions, the more complicated the answer became.

The unit of analysis fits in with and stems from your research question. It governs the way you then design your research because it governs what kind of information you seek. That information builds up to give a central picture. I have a systems understanding of the unit of analysis; to me a unit of analysis must have a central focus, a purpose that all its components contribute to, and a unit of analysis consists of a number of components, any one of which, if it were removed, would create a different system. For example, RQS's unit of analysis concerns a process (a campaign) that takes input and outputs x or y, and along the way, there are regulatory processes, decision making processes and ethical processes that influence the outcome. If you took away the regulatory process, you'd have a different system (like the UK MPs could have a different expenses system if their regulatory process was different).

The B852 course that we did for the MRes gave us some useful readings on unit of analysis, especially the Block I papers by Michael Crotty on the research process, and the Bryman & Bell paper on research designs.

RQS is writing his methodology chapter, and warns us that it is pivotal to all your research, which is probably why my third party monitor suggested I start writing it now, this year.

Assumptions about engagement

I'm assuming that the unit of analysis is the project. Why is it the project, because if it's the project is there a problem with the project? Is there a problem with IT projects in the public sector? And if there is a problem why does engagement have anything to do with the problem?

• The NAO report (NAO, 2006) assumes that engagement is a good thing.
• I'm assuming engagement is a process.
• I'm assuming engagement is not a widely recognised management construct.
• I am assuming one kind of engagement exists. Or does it vary depending on something? What? Perhaps it's its quality that varies. I note that the quality of engagement requires: reciprocity, shared decision making, a high level of interest, and is action for something worth doing.

But some studies measure engagement, such as the IES. Though I don't have free access to its reports its summary defines engagement:

"a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its values"

I'm not sure that the NAO writers meant the same thing. The IES survey used a diagnostic tool that ranged from training & development to job satisfaction, which to me sounds like motivation and motivating factors {Marcum, 1999}, so something other than engagment. And I don't think the NAO would measure its senior responsible owners engagement on the same characteristics as the IES uses.

---

NAO (2006) Central Government's use of consultants: Building client and consultant commitment National Audit Office
Marcum, J. W. (1999) 'Out With Motivation, in With Engagement', National Productivity Review (Wiley), 18 (4), pp. 43-46.