Business Research Methodology Report - Monash University MBA Program

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of business research methodology, focusing on the impact of rating mechanisms within the sharing economy. The report begins with a thorough literature review, examining the historical background, relevant theories, and current literature related to online feedback systems, peer-to-peer interactions, and the evolution of the sharing economy. It delves into the core concepts, including the role of rating mechanisms in influencing consumer behavior, the theories that underpin the sharing economy, and the importance of trust and reputation. The methodology section outlines the participants, measures, research design, procedures, and data analysis techniques employed in studying the effects of rating systems. The report also addresses the limitations of existing studies and highlights the dynamic nature of the market environment, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to business practices in the sharing economy. The report's structure includes chapters dedicated to the literature review, research methodology, and references, providing a well-organized and in-depth exploration of the topic. This report aims to contribute to a better understanding of the impact of rating mechanisms on consumers using sharing-economy platforms and offers valuable insights for businesses operating in this sector.

Running head: BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Business Research Methodology
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Table of Content
Chapter 2: Literature Review.....................................................................................................2
2.1 Historical Background.....................................................................................................2
2.2 Relevant Theories.............................................................................................................4
2.3 Current and relevant literature.........................................................................................5
Chapter 3: Research Methodology.............................................................................................9
3.1 Participants.......................................................................................................................9
3.2 Measures..........................................................................................................................9
3.3 Research Design.............................................................................................................10
3.4 Procedures......................................................................................................................10
3.5 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................10
References................................................................................................................................12

2BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter 2: Literature Review
As put forward by Yaraghi and Ravi (2017), online feedback mechanism or reputation
system could stimulate large word of mouth networks under which individual tend to share
opinions as well experience on a greater range of topics. Authors of this study also mentioned
the fact that with the help of digital, network platforms, review of restaurants were
democratized with the inclusion of a greater range as well as more open review process. As
put forward by Puschmann and Alt (2016), peer to peer nature of sharing economy tend to
suggest that consumers as well as providers of sharing services should interact on an equal
plane withdrawn from the conventional service hierarchies.
2.1 Historical Background
It has been identified that the tool sharing economy could describe the socio-
economic phenomenon of a temporary but access-based utilization of consumer goods or
service. Such products and services could usually be provided over the internet platforms but
different intermediaries, which could further serve as broker could relate the seekers as well
as information about suppliers. Thus, Puschmann and Alt (2016) mentioned that such process
could reduce the uncertainty in a multi-entity relationship facilitate negotiations as wells as
different perspective frameworks. Authors of this study have also mentioned the fact that
such approach could also aim at the use of spare resources by community to gain a specific
value and links the traditional notion of gaining good’s value by possession. Thierer et al.
(2015) shared two different kinds of sharing in the digital age such internet facilitate sharing
as well as collaborative Consumption. Findings of this research confirm the fact that sharing
economy has particularly developed by Weitzman who first introduced sharing as alterative
to purchasing and since then significance and meaning of the term has been a major subject to
change not because of the rise of internet.

3BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
It has also been identified that bidirectional communication and collaboration opportunities
of Web 2.0 could enabled sharing to be more enhanced and facilitated highly through several
virtual contacts and this turn started with 1999 which further founded the music sharing
platforms called Napster. This further built several discussion and lawsuit regarding the
intellectual Property Right. Eventually it leads to the element called sharing. Findings of this
study have also stated the fact that both Napster and IT enabled sharing platform gains the
characteristics of disruptive innovation. On the basis of the review it can be added that
numerous consideration in consumer studies and marketing have not effectively dealt with
the context of shared economy and rating mechanism. It has been identified that Knote and
Blohm (2016) performed a study and mentioned the fact that IT user aligned business model
innovation to be one of the significant dynamic capability of sharing based economy. Thus, it
can be added that such approach could help to consistently integrate new technologies but it
might not deviate heavily from the previous o existing mechanism.
Nonetheless, when it is consider from a service perspectives, it has been identified
that service can be differed or categorized on the basis of how sharing proceeds depending
upon which or what subject to share. On the contrary, Ert, Fleischer and Magen (2016)
performed a study and described Internet-Start-ups in the sharing economy in light of the
sharing asset perspective and divided them into four different categories. However, even
though several studies and series of statement made on shared economy and rating
mechanism, it can be added that hardly a study has yet found the aims at describing the
platforms in detail .This happens due to the dynamic market environments where customer
needs an depend are rapidly changing. Thus one single service or business practice is not
supposed to help the business process. There are some contemporary studies about the shared
economy and it has been found that authors in the contemporary papers have mentioned and
emphasised the major principle of shared economy. Authors, for example gave the example

4BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
that P2P or peer to peer offering, which is enabled intermediary platform are effective to
provide adequate matchmaking services maintaining the relationship between providers and
demander.
2.2 Relevant Theories
Overarching theories
It has been identified that in respect to the sharing economic as well as related
theories, range and type of hospitality and tourism have certainly increased considerably in
the past three years just like the theory of planned behaviour (Byrne and Callaghan 2013).
Complexity theory, social exchange theory and norm activation are the major theories that
often contribute to the sharing economy. On the other side, Ko (2012) mentioned the fact that
theory of planned behaviour and prospect theory and some psychological factors could
motivate travellers to consider refusing Airbnb. The scholar of this study have mentioned the
fact that when it comes to theory of planned behaviour, behaviour of the people could be
driven by the behavioural intension where behaviour intentions are the major functions of
three major elements. According to Ifinedo (2012) complexity theory could include the
recognition that no simple conditions could be the cause of an outcome of interest the authors
argued and defined social exchange theory as two-sided which could be manually contingent.
() added the fact transaction cost theory is more relevant to transactional cost theory, because
the authors cost of providing of providing cost for some goods through the market instead of
providing from within the organization. Montano and Kasprzyk (2015) performed an
experimental study and proves the complexity of attribute configurations impacting tourism
decisions about P2P accommodation and the sharing economy in destinations affected by
crisis.

5BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
On the other side the social exchange theory could investigate the diverse nature of
service quality in sharing economy and to prove this fact, the data has been collected from
Airbnb international guests and one of the major contribution of this study is that it has
particularly identified that the factors that have strong impact on the service quality in social
networking type of lodging. Existing studies have developed some sort of qualitative
exploratory studies that proposition with the help of transaction cost theory within sharing
platform in the hotel setting. The scholars have found that three major transaction
characteristics with the inclusion of frequency, uncertainty and product speciality. Studies
also provide a series of implications on sharing platforms and introducing a new term so
called integrated platforms. On the other side, Chen and Tung (2014) perfumed a study and
with the help of social cognitive theory authors developed a value adoption model to
particularly define some significant factors which have strong influence in redrawing the
applications.
Trust and reputation: Nasri and Charfeddine (2012) performed a study and
mentioned the fact that there is an array of utility-based attribute of the organization listing
and focusing to measure the impact such attributes on consumers; valuation of such listings.
Authors have used a hedonic price framework to test how utility-based attributes with the
inclusion of characteristics of organization listing, market completion could affect the overall
listing price. It is worth telling that this study provides a greater and unique Airbnb could
endow the primary source of consumer utility. Authors this paper have also estimated the
impact of host quality and listing quantity on the performance of host organizations listing.
2.3 Current and relevant literature
As put forward by Ert, Fleischer and Magen (2016), peer to peer nature of sharing
economy tend to suggest that consumers as well as providers of sharing services should
interact on an equal plane withdrawn from the conventional service hierarchies. Authors of

6BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
this study has mentioned that broad commercialization of the sharing economy has
established a duality of expectation and consumers should reconcile the idea of sociality with
an increasingly transactional reality. On the other side, Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen (2016)
mentioned the fact that even though third party services like key exchange are minimizing the
prevalence of direct human interaction, and sharing platforms could depend upon meeting the
service providers. Findings of this study indicate the fact that with the help of sharing
economy, studies have started to investigate how sharing platforms tend to encourage their
providers to provide an interpersonal service quality which could match platforms’ branded
experience. Authors of the study have also stated the example that Uber drivers usually
expected to have assured academic attention especially amid greater recognition of the
sharing economy as the site of work; there has been insufficient amount of attention to
parallel expectation kept on consumers to perform way. As put forward by Constantiou,
Marton and Tuunainen (2017), customers could be expected by platforms and providers to be
more personable and friendlier than consumer tradition of services. Frenken and Schor (2017)
arguably mentioned that customers could be left unaware about the implicit expectations
especially when considering different cultural as well as social norms
Rating mechanism as the behavioural tool
To make rational purchase decision, customers tend to desire fine grained information
to compare the alternative offers and choose the optimal choice (Jones and Abanami 2009).
On the other side, Di Giuseppe et al. (2014) added that customers desire easily digestible
information to minimize the cognitive effort of decision making. In order to support this
platform, Li, Shao and Huang (2017) mentioned the fact that platforms have therefore stated
rating mechanism to collect and display feedback as a seemingly objective calcination of
popularity under a particular network. Furthermore, it has also been identified that rating
mechanism have now become more widespread across e-commerce and this has been the

7BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
fundamental focus of the academic studies. Nonetheless, Eisenach (2015) mentioned the fact
that consumers have mentioned the fact that rating mechanism could come with many
disadvantages and downside.
Findings of the study have mentioned that manipulation for example has been know
with respect to hotel and product recommendations in which the hotel reviews tend to be
more negative or it could be average than home sharing suggestions. Such effects or
influences are often observed because of the differences in review as there is more of
incentive for the negative review manipulation by the close rivals for hotels. It can also be
added that such practices are less severe compared to active manipulation. On the other side,
Li, Wu and Lai (2013) mentioned the fact that reputation system might be positively skewed
because of the social as well as platforms. Authors of the study have mentioned the fact that
high percentage of positive reputation measures on eBay is particularly explained by the fact
that the purchasers have limited experience often choose to leave no feedback at all. A
fundamental factor for the excessively positive valence of ratings is that providing negative
feedback could be more costly than the positive feedback.
When reviewing this fact in more detail it has been identified that the numerous
number of studies have begun to identify the elements of rating system in the sharing
economy which could certainly vary between integers –based rating scales as well as longer
textual comments. On the contrary, Wu, Ma and Zeng (2016) mentioned the fact that
bilateral rating system might act as the most effective inventive for both providers as well as
socially desirable to act in a socially desirable fashion. Scholars of the study have also stated
the fact that the reputation system might work to motivate the good behaviour. Findings help
to observe the fact how ratings could act as the instrument of imposing discipline as well as
economic control over the provider behaviour which ensure that behaviour of the providers
are aligned what could meet the rating when necessary. It can be added that the both the

8BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
parties in most sharing platforms transactions hold the opportunity of providing a most
significant rating or giving feedback, recommending a national equivalence of the rating.
Alahmad, Pierce and Robert (2017) argued that while the effect of rating arguably larger on
providers as providers with negative or bad feedback could have to deal with the negative
consequence with the inclusion of rejection from the platforms.
Sharing economy consumers
As put forward by Codagnone and Martens (2016), sharing economy customers who
number in millions globally, could reflect the whole spectrum between occasional as well as
constant users with the involvement taking place for several reasons. With the respect to
consumer experience customer experience, sharing platforms could provide conventional
services like the hotels, or taxis. This means it can be added that sharing economy are usually
embedded with the notion of authority whereby customers consider experience to be less
commercial, more localised and more authentic. On the other side Koopman, Mitchell and
Thierer (2014) commented that terminology about consumers, mirroring the discourse across
the provider classification is often termed as euphemistic. Hence authors state the fact that as
the definition discursively shape consumer experience, the use of the terms like guest, peers
and friends in platform communication as the opposed to consumer or customer. Scholars of
the study have stated the fact that the idea or concept of emotional lour concerns an
individuals’ effort to suppress about feelings to generate the outward expression of
organizationally expected emotions.
According to the findings of this study, it can he mentioned that this fact is
particularly based on the socio-psychological theoretical underpinning of the concept of
emotion regulation. Stafford (2016) provided an argumentative stamen that conventionally
customers are were not anticipated to participate in emotional labour. Pettersen (2017)

9BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
performed a study and mentioned the fact that consumers are perceived as merely a passive
audience members whose emptions are usually there to manage and influence. Authors have
also added the fact that concept of emotional labour is mostly known as the most valuable
lens for discovering how emotional representation of sharing economy consumer are
positioned and conditioned by the ratting mechanism in a forma of losing control.
Truth and trusting others
When reviewing the rating mechanism, it has been identified that people can use
social networking sites to find out who they can trust and rely on for the discussion and
according to Schor (2017), in platforms, ‘trust builds the tools’ and the rating system are
highly important as an essential design component and sharing economy platform are highly
concerned with trust at all ranges especially with payment system and evaluation system. It is
worth telling that trust can be explained as more of a state of desired expectation of other
individual action and intentions. On the other side, Kenney and Zysman (2016) trust is the
most fundamental element to reduce risk, enhance collaboration, minimize social complexity
and generate order. Authors of the study, Dillahunt and Malone (2015) added the fact that the
concept of truth has for decades attracted scholars from multiple disciplines, on the contrary,
Frenken and Schor (2017) added the fact that attributes of individuals as well as propensity to
rely on while sociologists have been concerned with relationship among people and
institution.
Another significant concept found in this study is that social capital widely refers to
identification and value of social networks and the role of social ties. Scholars stated the fact
that the ability to build and maintain relationship is effectively understood as the most
fundamental pre-condition for the accumulation of social capital. Another contradictory fact
that even though social capital implies relationship between people that know each other, the

10BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
contrast ‘imagined community’ refers to socially constructed community which is imagined
by those who perceives themselves as the most element of the group without knowing other
individual personally. In addition to this, scholars of the above study, have also stated the fact
that social exchange theory often argue that social strutted is a premise for human action by
some members pursuing some generally agreed rules for the interaction. Particularly, in the
social exchange theory, there are two different types of exchange or motivations between
individuals, social and economic. It can be added that social and exchange theory might differ
with respect to type of motivation which could initiate exchanges.
Furthermore, it has also been identified and studied in the existing study, that social
exchange mostly relies on reciprocity, state of diffuse obligation but financial or economic
exchange is developed more upon impersonal premises, in which trust is there for all sort of
motivations. It can also be identified that existing studies tend to trust to be personal, while
later work considered trust as relation where the constructs of agency and reciprocity are
significantly considered. On the other side, Böcker and Meelen (2017) mentioned that
construct distributed trust tend to denote a kind of trust between strangers like the renting an
organization or entering a car with an unknown driver. Nevertheless, trust in abstract or the
computer system is not an emerging phenomenon and Schor (2016) performed a study and
added the fact abstract are majorly based on technical or professional expertise. Scholars of
the study have also mentioned the fact that individuals have no option compared but to rely
on the experts despite the fact that they do not have adequate knowledge of how they operate.
Furthermore, it can be added that existing papers are greatly important into decision making
processes in sharing economy field, where people could create trust as well as use design like
the rating score in the technique. As per the findings of existing papers, it can be added that
existing studies have discovered only a small number of customers create reviews and the

11BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
reviewers widely denote high score and it is fundamental to know how people actually trust
and interpret rating when making decisions.
Roles and responsibilities sharing economy providers
According to Cannon and Summer (2014), because of the peer to peer nature of sharing
economy and ongoing media discourse presenting ‘sharing’ social experience and providers
are often framed as giving back to their communities as well as opening up new avenues for
the local or regional collaboration. Even though this could be true in some particular cases,
there are several negative externalities which have be increased in some regional
communities across Europe. Findings of this study have also stated the fact that when it is
considered in a micro-scale, it has been identified that regional communities and neighbours
of home sharing-services tend to have more limited resources in t the context of considerate
guests. Even though, there are some issues with respect to the difficult or challenges to ignore
the casual case, the increase of professional or semi-professional sharing interactions in the
local or residential areas have maximised the issues and provided the sharing economy a
significant reputation for the social interruption. Sundararajan (2016) mentioned the fact that
providers as the group, could formulate significant beneficiary of the spread of sharing
economy, by sharing their assets, providers have gained a significant source of untapped
revenue and opportunities for the social experience. Even though much of the studies have a
set of contradictory facts and views that sharing economy is concerned with its collaboration
nature, with the role of sharing economy being to integrate individual together, it can be
added that sharing economy could reflect ingrained power imbalance in favour of the
platforms.

12BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Participants
As the study includes primary data analysis, primary data has been collected for
performing the analysis. Data has been collected from the respondents who are the consumers
of shared economy platform living in Johannesburg, South Africa. In order to collect data, a
survey method has been applied among the consumers who were selected on the basis of
chosen sample. Hence, the participants are basically the consumers of shared economy
platforms. In order to engage the respondents in the survey process a questionnaire method
has been applied. For performing the survey, close ended questions have been prepared and
distributed among the respondents. In addition, the respondents are chosen on the basis of
random probability sampling method. Probability sampling method has been applied to the
study because random sampling method helps to select members in a random order.
Moreover, as the con summers have been engaged in the data collection process, probability
sampling method is an effective choice because in probability sampling method all
respondents have the opportunity to take part in the data collection process.
3.2 Measures
As the study involves quantitative method for collecting data, measurement of data
plays a significant role. As data has been collected by using close ended questions, first the
data has been converted to meaningful format –such as the data is converted to numerical
forms (digits and numbers) for interpreting it in the analysis. Thereafter the converted data
has been presented with graph and table when performing the data analysis. Nonetheless, in
order to measure the data, different calculations have been performed. For example, for
gaining a suitable and accurate insight from the data findings, statistical calculation has been
performed such as the mean, mode and median has been performed. When measuring the

13BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
data, two different variables associated with the topic such as rating system and shared
economy has been considered in the data analysis.
3.3 Research Design
Research design is an overall plan which determines how research questions can be
resolved and the research design is supported with research strategies and methods which are
further related to data collection as well as analysis. Research design can be usually divided
into three different categories namely exploratory, explanatory and descriptive research
design. As put forward by Mackey and Gass (2015), exploratory research design as the name
implies fundamentally intends to explore the research questions but it does not provide final
or conclusive answers. Such research design is usually applied when a particular issue has not
clearly been defined before. Descriptive research design, on the other side, is a more of a
scientific technique with the inclusion of observation and description of the behaviour of a
subject without influencing in any manner. In the research, descriptive research has been
selected because, in order to learn the impact of rating mechanism on shared economy
platform, use of Scientific method such as statistical calculation would be an effective
method. Scientific method would generate more accurate insight about the impact.

14BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.4 Procedures
Research procedures indicate how study is performed by selecting the research techniques.
First the data has been collected by performing a survey among the consumers of shared
economy platform. Collected data has been converted to numerical formats to perform the
required calculation for the ultimate insight regarding the impact of rating mechanism on
shared economy platform. Thereafter, in order to perform the analysis the collected data has
been linked to the findings of the existing papers.
3.5 Data Analysis
In order to analyse the collected data, first the raw data has been converted into
meaningful data for the interpretation rationally. Hence, quantitative data first has been
presented with tables and graph and they are presented with graph and tables. Thereafter, the
data has been linked to the findings found in the literature review. This means the primary
findings and existing findings have been linked when performing the data analysis.

15BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
References
Böcker, L. and Meelen, T., 2017. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations
for intended sharing economy participation. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 23, pp.28-39.
Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G., 2013. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The state of
the art. Routledge.
Cannon, S. and Summers, L.H., 2014. How Uber and the sharing economy can win over
regulators. Harvard business review, 13(10), pp.24-28.
Chen, M.F. and Tung, P.J., 2014. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model
to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International journal of hospitality
management, 36, pp.221-230.
Codagnone, C. and Martens, B., 2016. Scoping the sharing economy: Origins, definitions,
impact and regulatory issues. Cristiano Codagnone and Bertin Martens (2016). Scoping the
Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and Regulatory Issues. Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy Working Paper, 1.
Constantiou, I., Marton, A. and Tuunainen, V.K., 2017. Four Models of Sharing Economy
Platforms. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(4).
Di Giuseppe, M., Perry, J.C., Petraglia, J., Janzen, J. and Lingiardi, V., 2014. Development of
a Q‐Sort Version of the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS‐Q) for Clinical
Use. Journal of clinical psychology, 70(5), pp.452-465.
Dillahunt, T.R. and Malone, A.R., 2015, April. The promise of the sharing economy among
disadvantaged communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2285-2294). ACM.

16BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Eisenach, J.A., 2015. The economics of zero rating. NERA Economic Consulting, March.
Ert, E., Fleischer, A. and Magen, N., 2016. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The
role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism Management, 55, pp.62-73.
Frenken, K. and Schor, J., 2017. Putting the sharing economy into
perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, pp.3-10.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M. and Ukkonen, A., 2016. The sharing economy: Why people
participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the association for information science
and technology, 67(9), pp.2047-2059.
Ifinedo, P., 2012. Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An
integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation
theory. Computers & Security, 31(1), pp.83-95.
Jones, D. and Abanami, T., Microsoft Corp, 2009. User rating mechanism for media content.
U.S. Patent Application 11/938,286.
Kenney, M. and Zysman, J., 2016. The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and
Technology, 32(3), p.61
Knote, R. and Blohm, I., 2016. Deconstructing the Sharing Economy: On the relevance for IS
research.
Ko, K.I., 2012. Complexity theory of real functions. Springer Science & Business Media.
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M. and Thierer, A., 2014. The sharing economy and consumer
protection regulation: The case for policy change. J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L., 8, p.529.
Li, S., Shao, Z. and Huang, J., 2017. ARM: Anonymous rating mechanism for discrete power
control. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 16(2), pp.326-340.

17BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Li, Y.M., Wu, C.T. and Lai, C.Y., 2013. A social recommender mechanism for e-commerce:
Combining similarity, trust, and relationship. Decision Support Systems, 55(3), pp.740-752.
Mackey, A. and Gass, S.M., 2015. Second language research: Methodology and design.
Routledge.
Montano, D.E. and Kasprzyk, D., 2015. Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned
behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: Theory, research and
practice, pp.95-124.
Nasri, W. and Charfeddine, L., 2012. Factors affecting the adoption of Internet banking in
Tunisia: An integration theory of acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. The
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 23(1), pp.1-14.
Pettersen, L.G.B., 2017. Rating mechanisms among participants in sharing economy
platforms.
Puschmann, T. and Alt, R., 2016. Sharing economy. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 58(1), pp.93-99.
Schor, J., 2016. Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and
Management Economics, 4(3), pp.7-22.
Schor, J.B., 2017. Does the sharing economy increase inequality within the eighty percent?:
findings from a qualitative study of platform providers. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 10(2), pp.263-279.
Stafford, B.E., 2016. Riding the Line between Employee and Independent Contractor in the
Modern Sharing Economy. Wake Forest L. Rev., 51, p.1223.
Sundararajan, A., 2016. The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-
based capitalism. Mit Press.

18BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Thierer, A., Koopman, C., Hobson, A. and Kuiper, C., 2015. How the internet, the sharing
economy, and reputational feedback mechanisms solve the lemons problem. U. Miami L.
Rev., 70, p.830.
Wu, J., Ma, P. and Zeng, M., 2016, July. The Role of Service-provider's Attributes in Sharing
Economy: a Data-driven Study from the Perspective of Trust. In WHICEB (p. 61).
Xie, H. and Lui, J.C., 2018. Incentive mechanism and rating system design for crowdsourcing
systems: Analysis, tradeoffs and inference. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 11(1),
pp.90-102.
Yaraghi, N. and Ravi, S., 2017. The current and future state of the sharing
economy. Available at SSRN 3041207.
Ye, T., Alahmad, R., Pierce, C. and Robert, L.P., 2017. Race and rating on sharing economy
platforms: The effect of race similarity and reputation on trust and booking intention in
Airbnb.