BUSN 501 WEEK 7 ARGUMENT

Introduction to BUSN 501 Week 7 Argument

This How-To BUSN 501 Guide is designed to assist you in mastering the fundamental skills of critical thinking and digital literacy through the critique of a peer-reviewed research article. The BUSN 501 Week 7 Argument involves identifying errors in reasoning, insufficient evidence, and author bias within an article focused on customer service. By comparing these academic insights to real-world examples, you will enhance their analytical skills and deepen their understanding of practical research practices.

Find a peer-reviewed article from the library regarding customer service.

Finding and Selecting a Peer-Reviewed Article

We will find a peer-reviewed article to analyze to start the BUSN 501 Week 7 Argument.

• Using Library Resources: Access your institution’s digital library or academic databases like JSTOR or PubMed. Utilize search filters to narrow down articles specifically related to customer service.
• Criteria for Article Selection: Choose a recent article to ensure relevance. Look for papers with explicit hypotheses and conclusions to facilitate a more straightforward analysis of reasoning and evidence.

Read and review the article and explain if the author had any errors in reasoning or issues with insufficient evidence.

Reading and Critiquing the Article

Next, we will identify errors in the article.

• Identifying Errors in Reasoning: Look for logical fallacies such as hasty generalizations, circular reasoning, or ad hominem attacks. Note these instances.
• Assessing Evidence Adequacy: Evaluate if sufficient data and research support the claims. Check the methods section for robustness and the discussion for acknowledgment of the study’s limitations.

Did you detect any bias that the author had? Compare your findings to anything you have seen regarding this in the media, at work, or in your life.  Use examples to support your position.

Detecting Bias

For this section of BUSN 501 Week 7 Argument, we will discuss, if present, the bias we found in the selected article. Then, we will compare it with a similar real-life example we have experienced.

• Types of Bias to Consider: Research potential publication, selection, or confirmation biases.
• Analyzing Author Bias: Reflect on the tone of the article and the background of the author(s) to understand possible personal or academic biases that might influence the findings.

• Using Media Comparisons: Gather examples from reputable news outlets or industry publications that discuss similar topics. Compare the portrayal and conclusions.
• Relating to Personal and Professional Experiences: Incorporate your experiences related to customer service to provide a practical perspective on the academic findings.

Example

Sample Argumentative Discussion

The proliferation of digital technologies has undeniably transformed traditional business models, particularly in customer service, where “untact” services—those minimizing face-to-face interaction—are gaining prominence. While proponents of untact services, such as those discussed in the reviewed article, argue that these innovations enhance customer experience by offering convenience and efficiency, a critical examination reveals a more nuanced reality that warrants a balanced discussion on their actual effectiveness and consumer acceptance (Lee & Lee, 2020).

Proponents of untact services often highlight the seamless integration of advanced technologies like AI, IoT, and machine learning as pivotal in reshaping consumer interactions (Ameen et al., 2021). They argue that these technologies enable businesses to offer personalized and efficient services that meet the evolving preferences of modern consumers who value speed and convenience. For example, the article points out how untact services like online banking and virtual car showrooms allow consumers to perform transactions and experience products without the constraints of physical presence and human interaction.

However, this optimistic portrayal overlooks several critical aspects. First, the article broadly generalizes consumer preferences for untact services without substantial empirical evidence (Lee & Lee, 2020). It assumes a universal preference for digital interactions over human contact, which is not consistently supported by consumer behavior studies. Such a sweeping assumption can be seen as a hasty generalization, a logical fallacy that fails to acknowledge the diversity in consumer preferences and the situational nuances that influence their choices.

Moreover, the article exhibits a potential confirmation bias, primarily focusing on the positive outcomes associated with untact services while underreporting the challenges and failures. This bias could skew the perception of untact services’ effectiveness, as it does not critically engage with the limitations or the broader implications of replacing human interactions with digital solutions. For instance, while untact services may offer convenience, they can also lead to isolation and frustration among consumers who might value personal touch and assistance in their service encounters.

Comparatively, real-world experiences and media reports suggest a more balanced view, where digital transformations are welcomed for efficiency and criticized for their lack of personal engagement (Levy, 2021). For example, the frustration with overly automated customer service systems and the desire for human interaction in complex service scenarios are common consumer complaints that challenge the article’s overwhelmingly positive stance.

In conclusion, while untact services represent a significant innovation in customer service enabled by digital technologies, their adoption and effectiveness should not be viewed through a one-dimensional lens of technological advancement. A more critical approach is required to understand the full spectrum of consumer reactions and the situational effectiveness of these services. Therefore, the argument for untact services should consider both the empirical evidence of consumer satisfaction and the inherent value of human interaction in the service industry. This balanced perspective is crucial for businesses that integrate untact services without compromising consumer trust and satisfaction.

Closing

Upon completing the BUSN 501 Week 7 Argument, you should be able to critically analyze academic literature, recognize biases, and apply theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios. This How-To Owlisdom Guide will not only refine critical thinking and digital literacy skills but also enhance the ability to engage with complex information in a meaningful way. Through this work, you develop a deeper appreciation for the intricacies of scholarly research and its implications in the real world.

References

Ameen, N., Hosany, S., & Tarhini, A. (2021). Consumer interaction with cutting-edge technologies: Implications for future research. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106761 

Lee, S. M., & Lee, D. (2020). “Untact”: A new customer service strategy in the digital age. Service Business, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-019-00408-2

Levy, R. (2021). Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Review, 111(3), 831–870. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191777