This is a blog.\u00a0 So, I am hoping that my fellow students will permit me the freedom to treat it like a blog.<\/p>\n
The fight was fought and lost in the battlefield of the mind this week.\u00a0 I can’t help but think that I made a costly mistake choosing to go back to school while working full time.<\/p>\n
I found the volume of reading overwhelming this week \u2013 to be honest, I didn\u2019t end up finishing all of the articles.\u00a0 I did read the assigned chapters.\u00a0 But I would complete them, think I understood the concepts, attempt the practice exercises and be forced to admit I find this even more difficult than I did during my BSc degrees.\u00a0 In addition, I did not clearly understand the assignment \u2013 but because I didn\u2019t complete the reading until yesterday, and posts are to be up\u2026 well\u2026 yesterday, there was no time to ask clarifying questions.\u00a0 After mentally agonizing for far longer than I care to admit I came to the conclusion that if I completed the assignment as I understood it, it was not possible to keep it to 500 words.\u00a0 My faith is just not that big.<\/p>\n
I share all of this because this is not my best work… AND it’s late.\u00a0 My feelings about that vacillate between shame and resignation.\u00a0 But, there is also an element of acceptance:\u00a0 I gave what I was capable of this week.\u00a0 That wee little feeling of acceptance signals some growth in me as a leader.\u00a0 And that is an encouraging thought.<\/p>\n
For the purposes of clarity I am going to use the headings as provided in the Unit 4 Assessment.<\/p>\n
Part A<\/p>\n
The purpose statement in both quantitative and qualitative research will include these key features:\u00a0 the focus, overall intent, the framework, the participants and the setting (Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015).<\/p>\n
Quantitative research questions are narrow and specific.\u00a0 The researcher wants to measure variables, and the research question will describe the response to a variable, question the relationship between variables, or compare responses to variables (Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015).\u00a0 Quantitative research includes a theory, and a hypothesis or prediction of how variable are going to affect one another, and researchers set this focus prior to undertaking the research; it remains fixed (Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015).<\/p>\n
In contrast, qualitative research questions are left broad, general and open-ended to seek a deeper understanding of a \u00a0central phenomenon; the focus is not set, and the research questions may change by the end of the study (Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015). \u00a0Qualitative research has a central question and subquestions to refine the study\u2019s direction (Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015).<\/p>\n
Since I come from a healthcare setting it comes as no surprise that the article I chose to evaluate was Principles of Servant-Leadership in Community Health Nursing:\u00a0 Management Issues and Behaviours Discovered in Ethnographic Research<\/em> by B. A. Sturm. (**I could not find in my search how to properly include an entire title and author as an in-text citation so I am hoping that this will be corrected for me so I can learn.\u00a0 I would rather lose the marks now and be taught so I get it right in the future.)\u00a0 Since the direction given to the students was to include the quality rating (0-3) with rationale\/evidence, and these criteria are only applicable to the individual items in the scale, there did not appear to be any way to summarize this work.\u00a0 This conclusion led to 2 hypotheses:<\/p>\n a) I didn\u2019t understand the assignment, or;<\/p>\n b) my answer would have far more content than what could possibly be limited to 500 words.<\/p>\n Since I really struggled with self-assessing whether I was using the tool correctly or not, I chose to include all of my ratings and rationale (summarized) in the hopes of receiving some constructive feedback, and in the hopes of possibly comparing my answers with another student if they happened to choose the same article.<\/p>\n I also chose to practice creating a table in APA format, something I learned in LDRS 671, and as I have only done this once, I had already forgotten most of the requirements.\u00a0 This also seemed to be the most logical way to present the information.\u00a0 However, I am doing this in Word right now (as I don\u2019t ever want to be in a position where I lose my work typing right into WordPressTM<\/sup>), so it remains to be seen if the table will actually copy over into the blog.\u00a0 (Addendum:\u00a0 it did, but with some formatting I didn’t want.)<\/p>\n Table 1<\/p>\n Evaluating the Statement of the Problem in Selected Servant-Leadership Article (Sturm, 2009).<\/em><\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n Adapted from Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015, p. 93.<\/em>\u00a0 (**Again, I don\u2019t know if this is a correct way of giving credit to the authors and hoping for some feedback\/correction.)<\/p>\n Part B<\/p>\n Please refer to Table 2 below.<\/p>\n I could have discussed this in Part A, but I am choosing to address it here.\u00a0 I am not confident that I completed any of the evaluation sections correctly.\u00a0 First, my ratings, based on the definitions in Plano-Clark and Cresswell (2015) seem very low for an article in a peer reviewed journal.\u00a0 Second, I am somewhat confused by the flow of the article I selected.\u00a0 The literature review in the Background section of the Sturm, 2009 article is very limited in scope in comparison to articles we have been reading in our other LDRS classes.\u00a0 However, the literature review defining ethnography under the Methods section is quite robust.\u00a0 I had understood that the Methods section was providing an explanation of the conceptual framework used by the author and was not related to the purpose or the problem the research intended to address.\u00a0 The ratings for the next section are based on this understanding.<\/p>\n Table 2<\/p>\n Evaluation of the Literature Review in Selected Servant-Leadership Article (Sturm, 2009)<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Adapted from Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015, p. 144<\/em><\/p>\n Part C<\/p>\n Please refer to Table 3 below.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Table 3<\/p>\n Evaluating the Purpose in Selected Servant-Leadership Article (Sturm, 2009)<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Adapted from Plano-Clark & Cresswell, 2015, p. 186 <\/em><\/p>\n Part D \u2013 Discussion Questions<\/p>\n As a consumer of research reports, the most important aspect of the introduction is understanding the problem being addressed by the research and the purpose of the research so that I know if this article is going to be relevant to my practice or not.\u00a0 Now that I have been introduced to the evaluation tools, I am interested in learning how to use them to be able to tell if what I am reading is a high quality report or not.\u00a0 I most certainly do not feel like I have this understanding at this point, but I am hopeful that with practice and some coaching I may be able to utilize the tools effectively in the future.<\/p>\n I do understand what elements belong in the introduction section.\u00a0 I think I have a preliminary understanding of the indicators to look for in each of the elements, and how to apply the rating scales provided in Plano-Clark and Cresswell (2015) to evaluate the quality.\u00a0 However, I would certainly not volunteer to be on a peer review panel, nor would I want to attempt to write a research article based on this limited knowledge.\u00a0 I don\u2019t actually know what questions to pose because of a self-awareness that I don\u2019t even know what I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n As stated earlier, at least I know what to look for in a research report introduction.\u00a0 Prior to this week, I didn\u2019t know what elements were supposed to be in the introduction.\u00a0 I do read clinical and leadership research reports in my workplace, but I have always just assumed that they were high quality.\u00a0 That may be a valid assumption, and it may not be.\u00a0 This knowledge will help me to begin to look for the indicators.\u00a0 I know that there is a lot more to come as we work through all of the sections of a research report in LDRS 591.<\/p>\n My closing question is more practical and likely not going to generate much in the way of substantive responses from my fellow students, for which I apologize.\u00a0 I would like to get an understanding of how my fellow students read and follow qualitative research reports.\u00a0 I am from a clinical background \u2013 the vast majority of research I was exposed to in both of my baccalaureate degrees was quantitative.\u00a0 I found some of the qualitative articles assigned in both LDRS 500 and LDRS 671 sent my head spinning.\u00a0 Between trying to keep track of all the acronyms and the multiple hypotheses that kept coming up in the articles I had difficulties following the direction and understanding what I was reading.\u00a0 Do you have a mental method, or another method of following all of the concepts and hypotheses being introduced?<\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Plano-Clark, V. & Cresswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer\u2019s guide<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.<\/p>\n Sturm, B. E. (2009). Principles of servant leadership in community health nursing.\u00a0 Management issues\u00a0 and behaviours discovered in ethnographic<\/p>\n research.\u00a0 Home Health Care Management and Practice, 21<\/em>(2), 82-89.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a blog.\u00a0 So, I am hoping that my fellow students will permit me the freedom to treat it like a blog. The fight was fought and lost in the battlefield of the mind this week.\u00a0 I can’t help but think that I made a costly mistake choosing to go back to school while […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":258,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ldrs591","category-unit-4","post-preview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/258"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":218,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215\/revisions\/218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/achsahs-springs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n\n
\n Key Elements<\/td>\n Rating<\/td>\n Rationale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The topic is interesting<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n It is intriguing and pertinent but does not engage from the first sentence<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n There is a meaningful problem<\/p>\n 3<\/td>\n One clear problem is stated explicitly and succinctly<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The importance of the problem is justified<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n Importance is justified well by personal experience, less so by recent literature<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n There are deficiencies in the knowledge about the problem<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n Non-specific statement about a lack of knowledge; no clearly identified deficiencies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n There are audiences who can\u00a0\u00a0 benefit from the missing knowledge<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n Only one audience identified, no specific examples for use of the missing knowledge<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n General Evaluation<\/td>\n Rating<\/td>\n Rationale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The passage clearly argues that the study is warranted<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n Weaknesses in some of the key elements above weaken the argument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The passage is well written<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n The passage is concise and easy to follow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n\n
\n Key Elements<\/td>\n Rating<\/td>\n Rationale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The review includes the relevant literature<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n Very few sources; no subtopics explored<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The review examines sources that are recent and of high quality<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n Sources are recent to the time of publication and references infer high quality<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The literature review is appropriately documented<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n Citations provided and appear to be correct, complete and consistent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The literature is thoughtfully synthesized<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n There is only one major theme and not easily identified<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The literature is critically examined<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n Literature is only summarized<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n General Evaluation<\/td>\n Rating<\/td>\n Rationale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The study has a strong foundation in the literature<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n Explicit identification of servant leadership model and ethnography as guiding theories; minimal connection otherwise to literature<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The use of the literature fits the study\u2019s overall research approach<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n Literature review does not justify the problem; minimal further examination or use to interpret<\/p>\n \n
\n\n
\n Key Elements<\/td>\n Rating<\/td>\n Rationale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The study\u2019s purpose is clearly specified<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n Purpose statements are easy to identify, concise and clear; includes focus, intent, framework, participants, and setting<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The focus of the study is appropriate<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n Study has single central phenomenon clearly identified which is a broad general concept<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The overall intent of the study is appropriate<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n The intent is to study the central phenomenon but does not include what is to be learned<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The participants and sites are appropriate<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n People and setting are clearly identified and fit into the focus and intent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The purpose is narrowed through appropriate research questions and\/or hypotheses<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n There are no hypotheses, however there are no research questions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n General Evaluation<\/td>\n Rating<\/td>\n Rationale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The purpose follows logically from the statement of the problem and literature review.<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n Reasons are not well argued; there is a disconnect between the three areas of evaluation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The purpose is consistent with the study\u2019s overall approach<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n Literature review does not justify the problem; minimal further examination or use to interpret<\/p>\n