Advertisement

Methodology Used for Determination of Critical Success Factors in Adopting the New General Data Protection Regulation in Higher Education Institutions

Chapter
  • 426 Downloads
Part of the Management and Industrial Engineering book series (MINEN)

Abstract

With the publication of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the European Union gives a clear signal that Data Protection is a key issue that needs proper regulation, and it is therefore important to identify a set of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) associated with the implementation of the GDPR in Portuguese Public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This article based on a working in progress investigation makes an in-depth discussion and argumentation regarding the adopted methodology to identify a set of CSFs associated with the implementation of the GDPR in Portuguese Public HEIs.

References

  1. Almenara, J. C., & Moro, A. I. (2014). Empleo del método Delphi y su empleo en la investigación en comunicación y educación. EDUTEC. Revista electrónica de tecnología educativa, 48, a272–a272.Google Scholar
  2. Alshibly, H., Chiong, R., & Bao, Y. (2016). Investigating the critical success factors for implementing electronic document management systems in governments: Evidence from Jordan. Information Systems Management, 33(4), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: Application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study, 51(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avella, J. R. (2016). Delphi panels: Research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 305–321. Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3561.
  5. Babbie, E. (2011). The basics of social research Belmont. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  6. Bartolini, C., & Siry, L. (2016). The right to be forgotten in the light of the consent of the data subject. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(2), 218–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  8. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Tampa: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1609406915621381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors (No. 1220-81. Report No. 69). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Center for Information Systems Research.Google Scholar
  12. Caralli, R. A., Stevens, J. F., Willke, B. J., & Wilson, W. R. (2004). The critical success factor method: Establishing a foundation for enterprise security management (No. CMU/SEI-2004-TR-010). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  13. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing social justice research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3, 507–535.Google Scholar
  14. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Londres: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999). The modified Delphi technique—A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2), 50–58.Google Scholar
  17. Daniel, D. R. (1961). Management information crisis. Harvard Business Review, 39(5), 111–121.Google Scholar
  18. Dias, N., Keraminiyage, K., Amaratunga, D., & Curwell, S. (2018). Critical success factors of a bottom up urban design process to deliver sustainable urban designs. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 22(4), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. R., & Jaspersen, L. J. (2018). Management and business research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Edwita, A., Sensuse, D. I., & Noprisson, H. (2017, October). Critical success factors of information system development projects. In 2017 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI) (pp. 285–290). IEEE.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon, T. J., & Helmer, O. (1964). Report on a long-range forecasting study (No. P-2982). Rand Corp Santa Monica Calif.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Green, R. A. (2014). The Delphi technique in educational research. Sage Open, 4(2), 2158244014529773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greener, S. L. (2008). Business research methods. Copenhagen: Ventus Publishing APS.Google Scholar
  26. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(163–194), 105.Google Scholar
  27. Gupta, U. G., & Clarke, R. E. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975–1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2), 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
  29. Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. Philosophy of Education, 28(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  30. Hallowell, M. R., & Gambatese, J. A. (2009). Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanafin, S., Brooks, A. M., Carroll, E., Fitzgerald, E., GaBhainn, S. N., & Sixsmith, J. (2007). Achieving consensus in developing a national set of child well-being indicators. Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.Google Scholar
  33. Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R., & Gurtner, S. (2014). Measuring critical success factors of TQM implementation successfully—A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21), 6254–6272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.Google Scholar
  35. Keeney, S., McKenna, H., & Hasson, F. (2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Lancaster, G. (2005). Research methods in management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Laureani, A., & Antony, J. (2018). Leadership—A critical success factor for the effective implementation of Lean Six Sigma. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(5), 502–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor’s comments: Research in information systems: what we haven’t learned. Mis Quarterly, 25(4), V.Google Scholar
  41. Locke, K. D. (2000). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Mitchell, V. W. (1991). The Delphi technique: An exposition and application. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 3(4), 333–358.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mufti, Y., Niazi, M., Alshayeb, M., & Mahmood, S. (2018). A readiness model for security requirements engineering. IEEE Access, 6, 28611–28631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  45. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ragab, M., Arisha, A. (2017). Research methodology in business: A starter’s guide. Management and Organizational Studies, 5(1) (2018).  https://doi.org/10.5430/mos.v5n1p1.
  48. Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 81–93.Google Scholar
  49. Rockart, J. F. (1982). The changing role of the information systems executive: A critical success factors perspective. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), 24(1), 3.Google Scholar
  50. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Saunders, M. N. K., & Tosey, P. C. (2013). The layers of research design. Rapport (Winter), 58–59.Google Scholar
  54. Schwartz, R. J., & Panacek, E. A. (1996). Basics of research (Part 7): Archival data research. Air Medical Journal, 15(3), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  56. Stewart, J. (2001). Is the Delphi technique a qualitative method? Medical Education, 35(10), 922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17, 273–285.Google Scholar
  58. Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not (editorial). Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tikkinen-Piri, C., Rohunen, A., & Markkula, J. (2018). EU General Data Protection Regulation: Changes and implications for personal data collecting companies. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(1), 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Zolingen, S. J., & Klaassen, C. A. (2003). Selection processes in a Delphi study about key qualifications in senior secondary vocational education. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(4), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.School of EngineeringUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations