Part A

     As per Plano and Creswell (2015) at a basic level, the difference between qualitative and quantitative studies are numbers and explanation vs. words and exploration. Highlights from qualitative studies include an emphasis on numbers and statistics, a very narrow scope and purpose yet a large number of individuals, time points or sites. Data is then analyzed by using graphs and tables to compare groups and describe trends. The researchers draw conclusions by looking at past results and make predictions based on the analyzed numerical statistics. Researchers must remain neutral and let the figures and results speak for themselves.

     In contrast, quantitative studies go deep with fewer individuals, sites or time frames. The purpose is very broad, and researchers interpret overall meaning from the results. In this context researchers are subjective and reflexive. (Plano & Creswell, 2015, p. 58)

     The statement of the problem from Parris and Peachey (2012) is the following; ‘Currently, there does not exist a comprehensive summary of empirical studies exploring servant leadership theory in organizational settings (e.g., a systematic literature review (SLR)), which is a gap in the extant literature.’ The quality rating is 2.79/3. The topic of Servant Leadership is clear, there is a meaningful problem quoted above that gives credence to the issue of a lack of clear evidence confirming that Servant Leadership is distinct, viable and valuable for organizations. It states deficiencies in the extant literature. The audiences that could benefit are all who are involved in studies of servant leadership and organizations. The passage is well written and argues that further study is warranted.

Part B

     Parris and Peachey’s (2012) article is a systematic literature review. They included 111 references and were very specific in their screening process resulting in 39 appropriate studies, both quantitative and qualitative. The authors did a second screening to ensure eligibility. My overall assessment of the literature review was 2.86/3, in the excellent range. Small deductions for including English only studies and interesting that there were so many varied Journals involved. The authors were able to synthesize a tremendous amount of literature into a meaningful paper that started with the initial proponents of this style of leadership, the tools used and reused and covered a wide swath of disciplines.  The literature was all published in peer reviewed journals and looked to provide an evidence-informed answer regarding the plausibility/success of servant leadership.

    Interesting how far the research moved forward from Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) paper, ten years previous that stated ‘as the current literature on servant leadership is filled with anecdotal evidence, empirical research is critically needed to test and validate these various questions and to create further predictions and hypotheses in order to fully develop the concept and construct of servant leadership.’ Parris and Peachey (2012) certainly answered the question based on the published literature up to 2012.

 

Part C

     Parris and Peachey (2012) stated the purpose directly, ‘the purpose of this study was to systematically examine and organize the current body of research literature that either quantitatively or qualitatively explored servant leadership theory in a given organizational setting.’ My overall evaluation of their literature review was 2.86/3. Clearly there was and continues to be a need to prove with research the benefits of servant leadership as it’s still in the early days of empirical studies. Parris and Peachey (2012) undertook the enormous task of making sense of the empirical studies that are peer reviewed and published to look for evidence/support for this form of leadership. Their purpose and focus were clear and appropriate. They were very specific at what studies were included, screening twice.  Their review added an important synthesis of what was known in 2012.

Part D

    The introduction section of a high-quality research paper should include the broad topic, a research problem and the purpose for the research study. The problem should be clear and concise and pull the reader in to want to read more. There should be a setting of the stage with some history on the problem, what has been done to date where the gaps are and what has been studied to date. The purpose statement should be clear, so the reader knows what to expect as they read on.  It should also point out who might benefit from the study.

    Plano and Creswell (2015) do a great job outlining why researchers need to study research problems including; filling a gap in existing literature, replicate past results examining different participants and different research sites, extend past results or examine the problem more thoroughly, learn from people affected by the problem whose voices have not been heard, or improve current practices related to the research problem (p.84).

    I was surprised to learn how many elements are included in the introduction. I thought it was just an introduction to the topic that was researched. It makes more sense now and sets up a research paper in a formulaic way and takes a bit of the mystery away. I also liked the explanation of quantitative research being used when an explanation is needed and qualitative when exploration is needed.  (Plano & Creswell, 2015, p. 85)

    I will apply this knowledge when I read papers for work and look for the elements discussed this week.  I spend a lot of time advocating for patients and there is an element of emotion involved. In written research papers, there isn’t much emotion expressed. It is more about the problem, research and then outcomes.

     After learning more about the structure of research papers, and demystifying the process does this entice anyone to want to investigate doing some hands-on research and even a PhD?

 

References

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership

       theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

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

       Boston, MA: Pearson.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application

       in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9(2), 57-64.

Photo by rawpixel 983726 on Unsplash