Abstract
AbstractThis chapter introduces a new jokes-based survey method that uses rating questions to assess statements expressed in cartoons, next to the rating of traditional statements on the same topic. This mixed-method approach studying flawed consultant expertise and its ethical repercussions finds consistent results for the two methods when comparing stakeholder opinions of five different groups: clients, client employees, consultants, academics studying consultants and outsiders. Clients and consultants are most positive about consultant expertise, client employees are most negative while academics and outsiders hold the middle ground. Advantages of the method are motivational (good response and completion rates) and greater clarity of statements due to the use of visuals. Cartoon-based questions in this mixed-method approach also increase validity by adding a new type of control questions. Limitations of the method are that the statements to be rated are dependent on available cartoon content. Rating questions linked to cartoons are also limited to critical statements.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference33 articles.
1. Alvesson, M., & Johansson, A. (2002). Professionalism and politics in management consultancy work. In R. Fincham & T. Clark (Eds.), Critical consulting: New perspectives on the management advice industry (pp. 228–246). Blackwell.
2. Ashford, M. (1998). Con Tricks: The shadowy world of management consultancy and how to make it work for you. Simon & Schuster.
3. Bouwmeester, O. (2013). Consultant jokes about managing uncertainty: Coping through humor. International Studies of Management & Organization, 43(3), 41–57.
4. Bouwmeester, O., & Stiekema, J. (2015). The paradoxical image of consultant expertise: A rhetorical deconstruction. Management Decision, 53(10), 2433–2456.
5. Clark, T. (1995). Managing consultants: Consultancy as the management of impressions. Open University Press.