Unit 4 Blog
Part A
- Comparing and contrast the elements of a qualitative research question and a quantitative research question.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,9(2), 57-64. doi:10.1177/107179190200900205
- Evaluation of the problem: 2.5/3
Sendjaya & Sarros (2002) introduced the topic of servant leadership (SL) by acknowledging that the concept received recognition in “the literature.” (p. 57). They then described the problem as a lack of empirical evidence to support the SL as a theory. The authors justified the importance of the problem and acknowledge its deficiencies by exposing the ambiguity that the nature of the SL causes: “a servant as a leader, and a leader as a servant” (p. 57). Nevertheless, the authors acknowledged the interest of scholarship and demonstrated the need of organization for servant leadership as a theory.
Part B. Evaluation of the Literature Review: 2.2/3
At the exception of three references, the authors included literatures in the leadership field from the past 10 years. 2.5/3
The authors made a good summary and use of the literatures, but they are “not organized into major themes or topics” (Plano – Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 143) 2/3
The critical examination of the study is average. Although the authors examine the “deficiencies, strengths and weaknesses” (Plano – Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 143) of the literature. They did not give a substantial explanation for their use of the literature. 1.5/3
The study takes its root from and is informed by literatures. It is evident in statements such as according to, argue, present in the review. 3/3
Although brief, I believe that the literature is in line with the overall approach (qualitative) of the study. It showcased in the use of informative statements. 2/3
Part C. Evaluation of the Purpose Statement: 2/3
The authors introduced the purpose statement with the statement “the paper explores” (p. 57), signalling to the audience, the focus of the study. (3/3)
The study focusses on the “philosophical basis of servant leadership” (p. 57) which in my opinion is a “broad… concept” (Plano – Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 185). (3/3)
The authors made it clear that servant leadership is the “phenomena” (Plano – Clark, 2015, p.147) which informed the central focus (3/3).
The study does not identify any participants, nor sites (0/3). In addition, the purpose is not offered in a form of a hypothesis (quantitative), or questions (qualitative). (0/3).
The purpose derived from the issues and the literature review (3/3), and is consistent with the qualitative approach the writers adopted (2/3).
Part D. Discussion Questions
In the introduction section of a research paper, I will need to consider the following details: the topic, the problem, the literature reviews and the purpose. I still struggle to discriminate between the statement of the problem and the topic, especially when it is not obvious.
The present knowledge could facilitate the selection of good resources which in turn could inform decision making and the development of good report; it is also a good strategy to learn how to summarize information for oral or written presentation.
Question: How important is the length of the introduction section in relation to its quality? Can concepts such as servant leadership which do not have theoretical foundation study empirically?
References:
Plano – Clark, V. L. & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding Research: A Consumer’s Guide. (2 ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,9(2), 57-64. doi:10.1177/107179190200900205
Pingback: Response to Edenguessi’s Blog Post – A Walk in the Woods
Hi Emmanuel,
Thank you for your response. I think part of the difficulty that you experienced this week in evaluating the introduction section of the research article was in the article you chose to review. This article was provided as “background” information on the topic of servant leadership and it was not an empirical study. I think if you had reviewed one of the other articles in the resources list, you would have found clearer answers to the evaluation questions.
That being said, I appreciate your effort in evaluating the introduction section of the Sendjaya and Sarros article. Hopefully after reading some of the reviews provided from other learners in the class it is clearer how the questions apply to empirical articles.
To answer your question: yes, servant leadership has been studied empirically. If you look at the Parris and Peachey article you will see a variety of both quantitative and qualitative research articles on the topic.
Have a great week.
Dr. Strong
I liked your idea of incorporating the table from Plano-Clark and Cresswell to differentiate between quantitative and qualitative studies. I appreciated reviewing that information in that format.
I also thank you for indicating that you are still having some struggles telling the difference between the statement of the problem and the topic. I hope that will become easier for you, but it is encouraging to hear that I am not alone.
I don’t have a response for your question, but I would like to know the answer. Some of the articles I have read for the last two LDRS courses have lengthy introductions. I suspect that length itself is not important whereas the quality of the information is. So, if the author is succinct in getting the right information into the introduction, then it may be very short, but still high quality.
I find your second question very interesting. I read through charliemable’s blog as well, and the research article that she used was published in 2012, and it sounds like there has been a lot more studies completed on servant leadership in the 10 years between the publication dates of the two studies. Again, I don’t have the answer to your question, but very interested in others’ thoughts.
Pingback: Unit 4 Summary – Heather Strong