Month: November 2018

Part A

The initial step to determining if I can trust any research that I am reading is to ascertain if the article is peer reviewed.  At that point there is already a level of trust established as I know that the published work has undergone scrutiny by a peer group that understands research and understands the content.  If the journal is reputable, or known for only publishing research that meets high standards in a particular area of study, then it is even more trustworthy.

However, even in the presence of peer review and reputation there is an onus on the reader to critically appraise if the research design is appropriate, if the methods are detailed enough, logical, and appear to be reproducible, if the statistical analysis is rigorous and appropriate for the study, if the discussion is robust, the interpretations are reasonable, and the researcher discloses the limitations of the research.  The presence of all of these criteria make the article more trustworthy.

The last ten weeks have taught me that research articles can be evaluated against standardized criteria as outlined in Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015).  If an article scores high on evaluation in all of the sections it would stand to reason that the research was performed competently.  Specifically if the methods and statistical analyses can be followed, understood, and endorsed by a group of peers the research is likely performed competently.

I don’t think that there is any way to know for sure if the research is reported honestly.  The first step would be to look for the funding source; if there appears to be a conflict of interest there is the possibility that the research honesty has been prejudiced by what the funding source wants the conclusions to be.  The other thing to look for is the reputation and history of the researcher.  If there are lot of previous articles published or co-published by the author that meet high standards of quality, and if these earlier articles are cited by other reputable authors it is more likely that the research is reported honestly.  This does not mean that a previously unpublished researcher is not reporting honestly, but there isn’t a foundation of trust built yet.  The other thing to look for is bias in the language of the article that may lead the reader to question the honesty of the results.

In order to know if the results of the study are consistent with what other researchers would conclude there is a requirement on the reader to look at other sources.  The reader needs to review the methods and analysis sections to determine if the detail present is extensive enough to reproduce the study.  When conclusions are made they need to be reviewed critically to ensure that they can be generalized as reported, they are not beyond the scope of the study, and the limitations are adequately addressed.

Part B

Evidence based decision making is important for transformational servant leader credibility.  It demonstrates a leader’s commitment to the follower to seek out up-to-date knowledge in order to make the best decisions possible.  Evidence based decision making demonstrates responsibility, stewardship, and ethical practice.  Leaders who are able to defend their decisions with evidence are influential, respected, convincing, and inspiring.

As I have stated before, if I expect evidence based, best practice medicine from the medical professionals I work with, then they have the right to expect evidence based, best practice leadership from me.  Serving others, whether it is employees, or patients, or taxpayers means making the best possible decisions and these can only be made with the best possible information.  Scholarly evidence will continually be a part of my practice moving forward because I have a new appreciation for the value it brings to effective leadership.  And, I have discovered how interesting it can be!

Reference

Plano-Clark, V. & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2^nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

(P.S.  To my fellow students – I was so pleased with myself because I had initially posted this after youth group on Friday night.  I think it may have been the 2nd time in the 10 weeks that I had actually met the “Friday-at-midnight” deadline.  I wake up this morning to post my comments on your posts early because my weekend is crazy busy only to discover that I had forgotten to create the Unit 10 category, so I didn’t even have my post in the right location.  Sigh.  Thank the Lord that some knowledge translation and skills have developed quicker than others!)

Yay!  I was excited this week because this is the section that, in the past, I would jump to and read anyways.  Not surprisingly, this section requires a more in-depth look than what my unpracticed eye has been used to.

Part A

1. What are the similarities and differences in the discussion/conclusion section of a qualitative and quantitative research report?

I do recognize that learning really isn’t demonstrated by simple repetition and rote, but the answer to this question is really most concisely and clearly portrayed in Figure 14.1 in Plano-Clark and Creswell, 2015, p. 472.  So I have chosen to adapt the format and reproduce that information here as I don’t think that I could present it any clearer.

Part B

2. Discuss your evaluation of the quality of the discussion/conclusion section of the servant leadership article chosen.

The article I chose this week was “The Impact of Servant Leadership Dimensions on Leader-member Exchange Among Health Care Professionals” authored by Hanse, Harlin, Jarebrant, Ulin, and Winkel in 2016.  The evaluation is represented in Table 1.  I do recognize that as a student there is value to expanding my scope of knowledge beyond my own personal environment and expect to do so, but right now I am drawn to the articles that are in the health care setting because that is where I lead for over 40 hours per week and where I have spent the last 30 years of my life working.

As I stated in my last blog I am finding it somewhat alarming that my more recent evaluations have overall higher ratings that my initial evaluations.  I suspect that this is related to my ability to identify the criteria more easily rather than the actual quality of the research, however, if I am able to find time after the completion of this course I want to go back and test that theory.

Table 1

Part C

As I have mentioned in earlier blogs this is the section that I have typically jumped to when reviewing articles relevant to my practice.  As a clinician, the most important aspects to me as a reader are the conclusions and the implications for practice.  However, based on the learning over the last number of weeks I realize now that I need to pay attention to the research in its entirety and think critically when reading.  Specific to the discussion/conclusion section I am not used to looking for the justification for the interpretation or the rationale for the practice implications. I need to start looking for this information in addition to practicing the other critical thinking skills that have been identified in earlier posts.  As I conceptualize and implement what I have learned from this course it is immediately applicable to my work context and current leadership experience.

The only outstanding question I have about this section, which I recognize isn’t entirely related to this section, is the purpose of a study.  I do recognize that there is value in being able to reproduce the findings of another researcher, but I recognized this week that I have always assumed or had a preconceived idea that “good” research extends beyond past research and adds to the body of knowledge in that area.  I am no longer confident that this idea is valid, but there is a part of me that still thinks that the most valuable research will not only support previous studies, but will also expand knowledge in that area of study.  So my closing questions are:  do you also place a higher value on research that appears to answer new questions in the field?   Do you think that research that doesn’t answer new questions, or is inconclusive is less valuable?

References

Hanse, J.J., Harlin, U., Jarebrant, C., Ulin, K., & Winkel, J. (2016). The impact of servant leadership dimensions on leader-member exchange among health care professions. Journal of Nursing Management, 24, 228-234.

Plano-Clark, V. & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2^nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Evaluation of podcast from https://create.twu.ca/awalkinthewoods/unit-8/

As I have come to expect from the author of “A Walk in the Woods”, my overall impression of this presentation is excellent.  The action research plan exceeds the expectations as outlined and is very well developed and articulated.

The project focuses on a real problem in practice and is well supported by both experiential evidence as well as research evidence.  The researcher clearly outlines how she plans to collaborate with other members of her work community to study the effects of the existing mentorship program in her school district and to explore areas for improvement.  The introductory paragraphs provide an in-depth understanding, and it is evident that there has been very careful and thorough reflection about the problem.  The researcher outlines how she plans to gather both quantitative survey data as well as qualitative data.  The plan of action is very clear and includes reflecting, thinking, looking, and gathering information in order to provide a plan of action for administrators.  If action is taken the results will enhance the lives of new teachers and by inference, the lives of their students.

Though there is nothing missing from the presentation, there are two possible suggestions to improve clarity for the listener.  First, the presentation begins with a question, and includes two subsequent questions within the body of the presentation.  As someone inexperienced in research I encountered some confusion as I wasn’t certain which question, if any, was the research question.  Second, although I believe it is inferred and present, there is no clear identification of the action–>reflection–>action continued or modified–>new focus cycle.  This is not required, just a possible suggestion for clarity.

Thank you again for the pleasure and privilege of learning from you.

P.S.  Excellent reading voice – lots of expression!

Learn about my action research plan in more detail here.

In many employment settings managers are selected for promotion because of their demonstrated leadership abilities on the front line. Health care is no exception. Managers begin in their roles with exceptional clinical skills, but minimal, or no management experience or training. In many program areas these managers are left with limited support and mentorship for a variety of reasons.  Internal training opportunities are provided intermittently, and external opportunities are also available intermittently but may or may not be supported financially. These sessions are often helpful, but not timely, and in the day to day crises of health care management there is little opportunity to translate knowledge into action.

Two of the management competencies expected in health care is holding others accountable, and conflict management skills. Established managers know that these skills need to be practiced. Training days have been offered through the former health region, but none recently. In my current role I have five managers from different program areas that report to me with varying years of experience from 2 months to several years. All of them have taken the Crucial Accountability: Tools for Resolving Violated Expectations, Broken Commitments, and Bad BehaviourTM two day training but it has been over two years. All of us could benefit from a review of the material, but with the advantages of a smaller group, all of us can enhance our skills and abilities by holding each other accountable to practice the skills that we have learned in the reading that week and reporting back to the larger group.

I have chosen this topic to address because these are real, practical leadership problems in my workplace, competencies are expected to improve and can be measured, and the reading/discussion dates have already been set up. Developing this into action research study provides the opportunity to make this even more meaningful to the participants and may have the potential to demonstrate to other leaders in the organization the benefits of applied learning, knowledge translation, and intentional mentorship for managers.

Part A

1. What is at the heart of the quantitative/qualitative debate?

At first I wasn’t sure if I missed an assigned reading or audio/video clip because I could not find where this was specifically addressed in this week’s content.  I went looking outside of this week’s reading, and discovered both scholarly and mainstream articles on the topic, and differing opinions.  One opinion is that “a good evaluation requires numbers and stories – there is no meaning of one without the other… qualitative and quantitative can tell a better story of outcomes than either can alone” (“Learning and Evaluation”, 2017).  However, although dated now, Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil (2002) were more cautious in their endorsement:

We believe that mixed-methods research is now being adopted uncritically by a new generation of researchers who have overlooked the         underlying assumptions behind the qualitative-quantitative debate.  Qualitative and quantitative research methods have grown out of, and still represent different paradigms.  However, the fact that the approaches are incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes… we have proposed seeking complementarity which we believe is both philosophically and practically sound.

The article by Stentz, Plano Clark, and Matkin (2012) appears to indirectly support the validity to this critique as the authors identify that in a small subset of leadership studies the rigor that should be expected in the mixed methods research is lacking.

However, authors such as Bass still see the value of mixed methods research in leadership studies and advocates for “…presenting the possibility of a new paradigm for leadership that combines the use of both objectivist and subjectivist toward better understanding of leadership as a complex phenomenon” (as cited in Stentz, Plano Clark, & Matkin, 2012).  Creswell (2013) presents the argument that mixed methods research is often used in the media where viewers “…get the qualitative evidence that begins to supplement or augment the statistical evidence to have a greater understanding…”  Overall, there is value to mixing quantitative and qualitative data if the research design applies rigor to both methods.

2. Do you think mixed-methods research can provide a more complete picture for leadership studies? Why or why not?

I think that there are a lot of valid points in the Creswell (2013) video.  I do think that people like numbers, and people like stories (Creswell, 2013) and that when you apply rigorous methods to both research methods this can lead to a greater understanding of a research problem.  I believe that this is evidenced in the articles that I have read this week, so mixed methods research can be done well, and it can provide that complete picture.

Part B

3. Discuss your evaluation of the mixed methods approach in the servant leadership article chosen. Include the quality rating (0-3) and the rationale/evidence for the rating in the response.

The article I chose this week was “Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations” by S. Sendjaya, J.C. Sarros, and J.C. Santora.  The evaluation of the use of mixed methods is presented in Table 1.  I am not sure how to self-analyze my results this week.  In the past weeks I have felt that I didn’t have a good understanding of what I was looking for, and was concerned that my ratings were low.  This week I feel more confident, and my ratings are high – I am skeptical that they can actually be that high.  So I am not sure if this means that I am getting more comfortable with identifying the criteria and I am learning the content from the Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) text, or I’m further off than I was previously.

Table 1

Part C

4. Describe an example of a Transformational Servant Leader in your life and then discuss how you would apply a mixed-methods approach to the study of servant leadership.

I am fortunate to have two examples, one from work, and one from church; I am going to choose the former CEO of the Cypress Health Region.  This is a leader who seeks to empower and elevate followers (Bass, as cited in Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008), and was able to lift others to new heights of motivation and morality, thereby encouraging herself in these areas (Burns, as cited in Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). She was very focused on organizational goals, but also could focus on individual followers and serve them; she came from a mental health background and was able to serve marginalized people, characteristics of a a servant leader (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008).  I am not certain if her priorities were followers first, organization second, and her own needs last (Graham, as cited in Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008) she was truly interested in the followers own ultimate good.

I am struggling with identifying how I would apply mixed methods research to my study of servant leadership.  I do understand the value and think that understanding the phenomenon of the leadership style would require a qualitative approach, but providing evidence of the outcomes and results would be more convincing to decision makers.  In my professional context the idea I have is doing a sequential exploratory study and starting with some small focus groups with employees from different program areas that identify that their manager exhibits the servant leadership behaviours and first determining how that makes them feel and if this influences how they then treat their patients.  This would be followed up with a larger quantitative study to identify if patients in that program area submit fewer complaints, or greater satisfaction.  I am not sure if this would meet the rigor required for a high quality mixed methods study, but this is my initial stab at an idea.

I was surprised to realize from the Creswell (2013) video how much of mainstream media is actually presented in a mixed-methods format of some sort.  I then realized that much of what we do in quality improvement in health care includes a mixed-methods format – asking for the subjective experience of the patient and then developing an experiment to test an assessment or treatment that improves the patient experience.  Is this application of mixed-methods study also present in your profession or work environment, and what would be some examples?

P.S.  I realized yesterday to my shame that I spelled Creswell wrong in my last blog (corrected now), however, I felt like perhaps I am permitted some small mistakes when I discovered that authors such as Stentz, Plano Clark, and Markin (2012) spelled Northouse wrong.  Also, I found it interesting that I had to watch how I cited the Plano-Clark references as some of them include the hyphen and some do not, and I had to try and keep them straight.

References

Plano-Clark, V. & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2^nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013 Jun 1). What is mixed methods research [Video file]. Retrieved from http://johnwcreswell.com/videos/

Learning and evaluation/Quantitative vs Qualitative.  (2017 Nov 8).  Retrieved November 1, 2018 from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_and_Evaluation/Quantitative_vs_Qualitative

Sale, J.E., Lohfeld, L.H., Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Qual Quant 36(1): 43-54. doi: [10.1023/A:1014301607592]

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C., Santora, J.C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 401-424.

Stentz, J.E., Plano Clark, V.L., Matkin, G.S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly 23(6): 1173-1183.