Month: February 2018 (Page 1 of 2)

LDRS 591 Activity 9.2

Unit 9 Learning Activities

Article reviewed: Barbuto, J. E., Gottfredson, R. K., & Searle, T. P. (2014). An examination of emotional intelligence as an antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21(3), 315-323.

Are the major results identified and summarized?

The authors identified and summarized the results very well. In their discussion they summarized in a simple easy to read manner, which i really appreciate, as compared to long-winded discussions of results in some other studies. Score 3.

Are the results related to the literature?

The authors attempted to correlate their results to previous literature, but they concluded that there wasn’t a robust literature studying the relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership, especially from the followers’ perspective. Score 3.

Are appropriate implications of the results for practice identified and justified?

They identified the implications of their results , suggesting that for organizations that wished to adopt a servant leadership approach, emotional intelligence could be used in selection and development of such leaders. They admitted that one arm of the study (followers’ perspective of relationship between leader’s emotional intelligence and servant leadership behavior) was contrary to their expectation. Score 3.

Is there a thoughtful critique of the study’s limitations?

The researchers identified that because the leaders were chosen from the civic fields, the results of this study could not be necessarily applied to private sector leaders. Another limitation they noted was that the follower samples size was 4-6 per leader, and the results might have been different if they had chosen more followers per leader. Score 3.

Are suitable suggestions for future research provided?

They authors suggested that future studies could be conducted with leaders from the private sector, and with a larger number of followers per leader. Score 3.

Are the interpretations consistent with the study’s results and limitations?

The conclusions are outlined succinctly and logically. Score 3.

Is the back matter appropriate?

The authors included references and authors’ biographies. I was disappointed to note that there were no appendices. I was expecting them to append the tools/questionnaires they used for their data collection. Score 1.

Total score 19. High quality study.

Reference

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

LDRS 591 Activity 9.1

Unit 9 Learning Activities

This is in response to Oliver Parson’ podcast about his Action Research project

Learning Activity 8.2

Does the project focus on a real problem in practice? Oliver’s proposed action research project focuses on a problem at his place of work , which is the non-profit coffee ship. He is talking about the problem of limited seating for customers, especially during their busy hours. Score 3.

Does the researcher plan to study his or her own practices or plan to collaborate with community members? He plans to study his own practice. There does not seem to be any mention of community involvement in his project. He does talk about discussing the problem with his workers and manager about ways to maximize their space. He also mentions gathering data from other coffee shops about their experience with space utilization. He does not elaborate how he plans to keep his coworkers or the community involved throughout the project. Score 2.

Does the project include careful reflection about the problem? Oliver reflects on how the problem of space is sometimes a deterrent to customers buying coffee from their shop. He thinks this negatively impacts their profits, which in turn affects their contribution towards the charity they support. Score 3.

Does the researcher plan to gather several sources of information (e.g., qualitative and quantitative procedures)? Oliver proposes collection of quantitative data, in terms of busiest hours, number of customers, duration of their stay etc. He does not propose collection of qualitative data. I think in this situation he could collect some qualitative data in the form a simple 2-3 question survey about what the customers like / dislike about the coffee shop, and an open ended question about what they can do to make the experience better. I think surveying the customers might yield some insight from the customers’ point of view. Score 2.

Does the researcher develop a clear plan for addressing the problem? He does seem to have a clear idea of the problem and the fact that some action needs to be taken to address it. He also has a plan about how to study the problem, and he also outlines some possible outcomes of the study, like rearranging furniture, the possibility of buying new furniture, changing the layout etc. Score 3.

Does the project include reflecting, thinking, looking, and gathering information and acting? Oliver proposes to ‘circle back’ after putting the interventions in place, and collecting more data to study the impact of the changes. Score 3.

Will the results of the project enhance the lives of those involved? His project endeavors to look for ways to optimize space in their coffee shop, in the hope of increasing customer satisfaction and sales. This could in turn increase their profits which are used to contribute towards a charity. Score 3.

Overall score 19. High quality.

Reference

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

LDRS 591 Activity 7.2

Unit 7 Learning Activities

Review article: Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C., & Santora, J.C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.

Purpose of the study: to develop and validate a multidimensional measure of servant leadership behavior.

Rationale. The authors studied previously available measures for servant leadership, and concluded that two important dimensions were missing from these pre-existing measures : spirituality and morality ethics. They developed the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS) which incorporated these dimensions along with voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship and transforming influence. They then tested it using mixed methods. Score 3.

Choice of mixed methods appropriate? The researchers subjected the above scale, SLBS, to mixed methods using 2 studies. In study 1 they interviewed 15 senior level executives in for-profit and non-profit to get their insight into servant leadership. A pool of 101 servant leadership items was created. This was then subjected to analysis by 15 experts in the field of servant leadership research. Through Content Validity Ratio the number of items was reduced to a more reasonable 73 items. This 73 item SLBS was then used to survey 277 graduate students (study 2), who were also employed as managers or professionals. After applying confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, more items were deleted and a final SLBS version with 35 items emerged. The authors justified their choice of mixed methods approach in the discussion. Score 3.

Are quantitative methods good quality? Study 2 surveyed 277 graduate level students. The authors did not elaborate on what methods were used to survey and what questionnaires were used, or what was the rationale behind the use of these survey methods. They did seem to have applied statistical analyses to their results. Score 2.

Are qualitative methods of good quality? The authors conducted interviews, used transcriptions and field notes, created themes. Score 3.

Quantitative and qualitative components meaningfully mixed? This study is an example of sequential exploratory mixed methods design, as per Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 398, figure 12.6). They applied qualitative methods to develop a new measure for servant leadership, and then used quantitative measures to test it and modify it. Score 3.

Mixed methods application was rigorous. The mixed methods design seems to be a good fit, and flows logically for the purpose of this study. Score 3.

Mixed methods produced a good understanding of the research purpose. The findings of the mixed study went beyond the explanation of either qualitative or quantitative study. Score 3.

LDRS 591 Activity 6.4

Unit 6 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports the most important thing for me in a high quality qualitative research report are participants and data collection.

Participants. Since sample sizes in qualitative studies are typically smaller, and data collection is more intensive, participant selection is very vital to the validity of the process. The researchers must explain their reasons for chosing to study the participants and have a justification for their sample size and sampling strategy. Since participant responses in qualitative studies are subjective, I like to see that participant selection was unbiased, and preferably without employer involvement. I understand it might not always be possible for an employer to be totally “blind” to their employees’ participation, I think employee responses could be inaccurate if they were wary of employer response. I would like to see an explanation from the researchers how this was addressed.

Data collection. As I understand the qualitative research process better , I learn that qualitative studies can evolve along the way. The researchers keep an open mind and so must the reader. It is the researchers’ responsibility to explain their rationale for making the changes they did. Explanation by the researchers that detailed audio notes , and transcriptions were taken and referred to, along with field notes, elicits trust in their process. The researchers might have to create new data collection tools during the course of the study as it progresses. I would like to see the rationale behind the creation of these new tools, and attempts made by researchers to ensure the reader of the accuracy and importance of the new tools. 

As an end note, I will say that I agree with Layla when she says that understanding the research design adopted in the study is important for the reader to best understand the study. Ideally, I would like it if the researchers would name the research design in their methods section.

Question: Since the qualitative process is ‘explorative’ and ‘evolves’ along the way, the results could be interpreted in different ways. Since the reader doesn’t always have access to the analysis tools or programs used by the researchers, how does the reader reconcile their interpretation with that of the researchers? Seems like trust in the researchers is an important element to the consumer of qualitative research.

Reference

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

LDSR 591 Activity 6.4

Unit 6 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports the most important thing for me in the methods and results section of a high quality research report is participants and data collection.

Participants: Once the researchers have identified the central phenomenon and research design, their choice of sample is very important. As per Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 332), the sample is composed of the site and the participants. Since a qualitative study is explorative, it is vital that the participants that are selected are those who can help the researchers explore the topic by providing unbiased and in-depth answers/ discussions as per the research design. The researcher more often than not applies purposeful sampling to enroll “information-rich” participants, whose meaningful responses to data collection will help the researchers explore their research topic. (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 332). Before data are collected it is very important for me to know what enrolling procedures were employed by the researchers: whether participation in the study was truly voluntary or if it was obtained via the employer, were the participants assured confidentiality, whether compensation to employees was offered by employer or researchers and if it could potentially introduce bias, were ethical issues identified and addressed, what kind of ethical oversight was envisioned and/or applied.

Data collection: In my view data are the most important element of any study. Methods of collection of data should be clearly outlined in the methods selection. The rationale for choosing the data collection methods and procedures should also be clear to the reader. The data should ideally be collected using multiple methods. It also helps the  reader understand the study better if the researchers mention the challenges that they came across during data collection, and any changes they had to make to the study as a result.

All the elements in the methods and results section of a research report are important.  Understandably, the primary interest of any reader is in finding out what the results of the study are and how they are applicable to us. But for the results to be deemed useful and valid, they have to be backed by credible data collection and analysis. As a consumer of research reports, I make a decision regarding the credibility of a study first and foremost based on the focus on selection of appropriate participants and rigorous data collection.

Question: I will admit that because of my limited knowledge of statistics, I usually skim over the data analysis section, and go straight to results and discussion. Is this bad scholarly practice?

After reading the chapter on data analysis I do feel slightly more confident in tackling it henceforth.

Reference

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

LDRS 591 Activity 6.3

Unit 6 Learning Activities

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The influence of servant leadership on restaurant employee engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 453-464.

Did the analysis process use rigorous qualitative procedures?

They received transcripts of the audio recordings of focus group discussions. The Researcher used manual coding by using key-words. They addressed bias by applying Epoche. ( I don’t know what this is) . Score 3.

Did the researchers use at least 3 strategies to validate the findings?

The researchers mentioned using bracketing and triangulation. Score 2

Did the findings include a good description of the people, places, or events in the study?

The authors included participant quotes in their data analysis. They included one table on focus group responses on servant leader qualities. Score 2.

Did the findings include appropriate themes about the central phenomenon? 

They identified 5 predominant themes from their data analysis. These themes cover their central phenomenon. They quoted participant quotes in their discussion about themes. Score 3

Did the findings relate multiple themes to each other?

The authors did not connect the themes through a text or table. They did bring them together in the discussion section. It is not clear from the discussion though if there is a correlation between the themes. Score 1.

Did data analysis represent a good qualitative process?

Overall I think this is an example of a good quality qualitative data analysis. I do not believe that the themes necessarily have to be connected, as by definition a qualitative study is ‘explorative’. Presenting themes as they emerge from the study takes precedence over trying to find a connection. Score 3.

Did the findings provide a good exploration of the central phenomenon? 

The findings did provide detailed information about the central phenomenon of servant leadership from the perspective of restaurant employees. In the conclusion authors mention that through data analysis they identified employee engagement drivers such as peer relationship, open communication and flexibility. Score 3.

Overall score: 17. High quality study.