Author: Simarjit (Page 2 of 11)

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.

LDRS 591 Activity 6.1

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.

The authors labelled the study a ‘phenomenological design’, which I was not able to find reference too in our text. I think this study is an example of a case-study research design. The authors studies servant leadership in a bounded system, in this case the employees of a restaurant.

As per the criteria cited by Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015, p. 301) for evaluating te research design in a qualitative research report:

Did the research design guide the conduct of the qualitative study? 

The researchers intended to study the relationship between servant leadership and employee engagement. They divided the participants into  2 focus groups, and these groups were interviewed by an experienced interviewer, along with observation. The researchers seem to be knowledgeable about the design and cited their literature review. Score 3.

Was the choice of research design appropriate and justified?

The choice of research design seems to be appropriate, given that they sought to study the impact of servant leadership from the employees’ perspective. Score 3.

Were good quality data collection procedures used?

They conducted focus groups . They also collected data by other sources and then triangulated the results. Other than the focus groups, they used internal surveys from the past 2 years; they also conducted a 2 hour observation starting 30 minutes before the focus group where they studies interactions amongst employees and with customers. Date from all these sources were triangulated. Score 3.

Were good quality data analysis procedures used?

I will defer this till I learn more in the following chapters.

Were good quality results and interpretations reported?

They mention that 5 themes emerged during their data analysis. I hope we will learn more about this in the next chapters.

Did the study use a rigorous research design? 

The study flows in a coherent, easy to follow pattern. The abstract however was not arranged in the format that one expects from a peer reviewed journal article publication. Score 2

Did the use of qualitative research design address the study’s purpose? 

This research design was appropriate to help identify the relationship between servant leadership and employee engagement and commitment. It adopted the key elements of a case study research as mentioned by PLano-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 293)- the research problem called for in-depth exploration; researcher collected multiple forms of data; the researcher analysed data for description and themes; findings included description, themes and lessons learned. Score 3

Totals core 14/15

Reference

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

LDRS 591 Activity 591

Unit 5 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports, the most important thing(s) for me in the methods and results section of a high-quality quantitative research report is/are…

After reading the required chapters of the textbook for this unit, I realized that my criteria for evaluating a study have been vague. I now have a better idea what to look for in a high quality quantitative research. I have combined the criteria in chapters 5,6,7 of Plan-Clark and Creswell (2015) along with some personal criteria tat I feel strongly about.

Research design: The authors should clearly state their reasons for the choice of study and data collection methods.

Participants: For me this is the most important component of the study. The validity of the study depends to a large extent on how the researchers choose their participants. For a high-quality study it must be clear what attempts the researchers made to identify and eliminate any bias or sampling error,  an explanation that the sample is representative of the population, and that the size of the sample is appropriate for the type of study conducted.

Data collection: The instruments that the authors use to collect data must be validated through prior research. If the authors use an instrument created by them, there should be a clear explanation by the authors how that instrument would help collect data for the variables they plan to study.

Data analysis and results: I will admit that my understanding of statistics is very basic, even after having read chapter 7 of the above textbook. I usually read the results and discussions section to understanding the outcome of the study. The results should clearly address the research questions and hypotheses. The results and discussion section should also be arranged in a comprehensive and orderly manner, addressing the research questions in a linear way.

Question: I find myself instinctively trusting studies that use validate instruments. Is it fair to judge a study as falling short if the authors create their own instrument/s , as long as they attempt to include all the variables they are studying ?

Reference

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

LDRS 591 Activity 5.3

Unit 5 Learning Activities

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation. Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46-54.

Were the data rigorously scored and reported ?

Procedures used to collect data seemed to be consistent . They measured the 2 independent variables using a 5point Likert-like scale. I could not find mention of what statistical software program was used. Score 2.

Were good descriptive analyses reported ?

Descriptive statistics were used in the form of standard deviation, and z score. Score 3.

Were good hypothesis testing procedures used?

The authors formulated 3 hypotheses. They did demonstrate the application of all 5 steps of the hypothesis testing process as described by Plan-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 264). Score 2.

What inferential statistics were used ?

As mentioned above, the hypothesis testing wasn’t elaborated upon. I did not find mention of alpha value in the results or analysis sections, though it is mentioned in the results tables. They calculated the r2 (coefficient of determination) to measure the relation of  ‘commitment to serve’ and role inversion behavior’ to ‘job satisfaction’ . Score 3.

What were the results? Were the results comprehensive?

The results suggest that role inversion behavior and commitment to serve alone do not lead to job satisfaction (hypothesis 1 & 2), but the interaction of both these variable maximizes job satisfaction ( hypothesis 3). Score 3.

Did the results include sufficient information? 

The results included sufficient information to come to the above conclusion. The study disproved hypothesis 1 and 2,  but proved hypothesis 3. None of the hypotheses were worded as ‘null’ hypotheses, instead all three were laid out as alternative hypotheses. Score 2.

Did the analysis represent a good quantitative process?

The data analysis was not easy to follow. The authors talk about ‘models’ which are not clearly specified in the methods or results. I was not able to understand their results based on their analysis, and had to rely on the discussion and conclusions to understand whether the study supported their hypotheses. Score 1.

Total score 16. Adequate study.

Reference

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