LDRS591

I believe this article ranks a three in categories one to five on page 301 of the Plano-Clark and Crewel text (2015). Overall, I believe that the plan and execution of the study were well done. The design went well with their intent to generate a theory revolving servant leadership, “The philosophy, values, and characteristics of servant leadership are applicable to youth leadership development” (Chan, 2007, p.18). In fact, there is even a section in the article dedicated to the research design and its explanation. Through this, it is shown that the design properly addressed the purpose. Interviews were held so as to give students a personal chance to show their potential servant leadership skills, “These focus groups were grade-level specific, with an intent that interviewees of the same group had similar experiences so that purposeful discussion could be achieved” (Chan, 2007, p.20).

Source:

Chan, K. W. C, & So, G. B. K. (2017). Cultivating servant leaders in secondary schooling. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 12-31. Retrieved from http://www.sltpjournal.org/uploads/2/6/3/9/26394582/03chan_so_vol_4_issue_1.pdf

I apologize in advance if some of this post seems repeated from 5.4. I didn’t realize that the question would be repeated in this unit for qualitative. Otherwise, I would have made my post a bit more specific to quantitative. Allow me to briefly reiterate what I said in my 5.4 post as I believe it applies to qualitative analysis as well:

“The methods section of an article is the area that is most at risk of confusing readers. It is easy to get bogged down in numbers and statistical wordiness.”

The only comment I would add that applies to qualitative would be that the method section, in this case, risks being too broad. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative is less specific to begin with. With qualitative work, I think the risk would be more tuned to what I said above about wordiness because this type of research is designed to be more specific. Unlike my 5.4 post, I found the article I looked at this week to not be in danger of being too broad or too wordy. I thought it was well laid out, which is unusual for a methods section for me. This could be indicative of a personal preference towards qualitative work over quantitative.

The question I would like to ask for this unit is whether or not quantitative and qualitative methods are really all that different? Aside from the charts in the textbook, would you have known that there was even a disparity between the two? I ask because I don’t think I would have. I believe the text over exaggerates the degree of difference between qualitative and quantitative research Yes there is a difference, but I don’t think the difference permeates every single section down to minute details.

I would give the researchers a 2/3 for the analysis process. They did record the interviews and took into account personal interpretation. In fact, answers to the questions by the participants were given from experience. However, I am unable to find evidence of codes for the data. Concerning the descriptors, I would give a 3/3 in this category. While the text does say that it must be done with rich detail and participant quotes I found the explanation to be sufficient. The interviews were given to students at an international school in Hong Kong.

I would give a 2.5/3 for both the researcher’s findings having appropriate themes about the central phenomenon and having an excellent exploration of said phenomenons. I subtracted half a point because I think there could have been more perspective. They did say that research in the area of servant leadership in regards to secondary students was lacking. They also explained that this area was of great importance because secondary students are going through a significant amount of change. Still, I wish they would have acknowledged possible arguments made from the other side. Perhaps there are those who believe that servant leadership research in the area of secondary students is pointless because they are changing so rapidly. Everyone in the secondary level is at a different stage of development, and so it goes without saying that perhaps servant leadership research would be best done once the temperamental stages are over.

Sources:

Chan, K. W. C, & So, G. B. K. (2017). Cultivating servant leaders in secondary schooling. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 12-31. Retrieved from http://www.sltpjournal.org/uploads/2/6/3/9/26394582/03chan_so_vol_4_issue_1.pdf

I would give the article on servant leadership in secondary schools a two in sampling strategy, a one in sample size, and a three in every other category.

I’m not sure the sampling strategy was justified because I believe all interview and survey results can be skewed depending on the mood the subjects are in. If someone is having a bad day or suffering from depression, they may have put answers that reflect their emotions instead of reality. I have no suggestions on how to bypass this. However, it is something I have always found problematic in many studies.

Concerning the sample size was much too little. In the journal article that I used for unit five used almost six hundred teachers over a broad range of schools (Cerit, 2009, pg. 602). For this article, it seems only a handful of students were interviewed in one school in Hong Kong. This does not adequately reflect how secondary students perceive servant leadership. If the article had included more people over a larger area, it would have been much more conclusive. Instead, because they used only a few students from one school, they are only getting one perspective.

Ethical qualitative data was gathered using standard procedures and high-quality instruments. There was no indication of students being pressured into answers. In fact, the interviewers were chosen due to their close relationship with the students to put them at ease and avoid answers that were given merely to please. This also allowed for students to treat the interview more as a conversation with a personal undertone. They gave responses through their personal experience and viewpoints. Once the discussion began probing questions were asked to make the subjects think critically. Afterwards, the recordings taken during the session were played back to promote accuracy and keep a solid record.

Sources:

Chan, K. W. C, & So, G. B. K. (2017). Cultivating servant leaders in secondary schooling. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 12-31. Retrieved from http://www.sltpjournal.org/uploads/2/6/3/9/26394582/03chan_so_vol_4_issue_1.pdf

Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.

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 clarity. It is important to note that I will be discussing more the methods section than the results section as it is this one that confuses me more.

The methods section of an article is the area that is most at risk of confusing readers. It is easy to get bogged down in numbers and statistical wordiness. I will be the first to admit that before this course I often simply skipped this section and went on to the conclusion to find what the results were. Needless to say, it can be difficult not to get lost in this section! Even the article I looked at for this unit had some areas that were a bit too muddled for me “Laub (1999) and Miears (2004) reported that the OLA had Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the six subscales of 0.90 or above” (p. 609). This is why clarity in the methods section is so important. Authors and researchers should strive to speak in lamens terms and clarify terms that are not seen in the field. In this case, the authors should have clarified what mathematical significance the words ‘alpha coefficient’ and ‘subscales’ mean.

The question I would like to ask is the following: Is it absolutely necessary to comprehend the methods section when the conclusion has a better chance of clearly stating what the findings were and their implications? For years I have done this and while it might make me a bad student I certainly don’t lose any sleep at night when I don’t understand the exact procedures. Even if understanding the methods section means being able to critique the work I find that I fear running the risk of looking stupid if I criticize words I’m not even sure mean.

Source:

Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.

For my blog posts this week I chose the article on servant leadership in the education system by Yusuf Cerit. I would rate the article a three in all categories. The explanations as to why are given below.

The study has a suitable choice for research design because it deals with a problem that can be clarified by way of mathematical means including mean and standard deviation. The way they chose the participants compliments the study. Almost six hundred teachers participated over a large range of schools within a specific province in Turkey. The way they went about collecting the data was appropriate and rigorous. In this case, the servant leadership scale (OLA) was carefully adapted to suit Turkey, including precise translation. Once this was done participants were given a survey with questions to rate on a scale of one to five for satisfaction. Once the data was collected a mean and standard deviation were found in order to properly scale the results. The data was then analyzed using charts and tables to show the calculations for each category. To name a few the list would include the development of people and intrinsic satisfaction.

Lastly, the conclusion section contains both cause and effect. The cause of servant leadership has a positive effect on job satisfaction in the field of education. The relationship between principles and teachers appear to be healthier and rewarding.

Source:

Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.

The article clearly states its purpose in the first opening sentences, “This paper examines the philosophical foundation of servant leadership by extracting several value-laden principles drawn from Greenland’s and Jesus Christ’s delineation of the concept” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 57). The overall focus is thereby appropriate given its intent. The sources and participants are appropriate as well.

It’s important to note at this point that this article was based more on qualitative than quantitative research. There was barely any numerical data. Instead, it used onions, reasons, and motivations to delve further into what servant leadership is comprised of. All of this means that this article would naturally score more on the qualitative chart than the quantitative one (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2015, p.184-185).

All of the above taken into account leads me to rate the article a three in every category with the exception of number five and six. Category five states that “The purpose is narrowed through research questions and/or hypotheses” (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 184). Category six states that “The purpose follows logically from the statement of the problem and literature review” (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 184). The reason why I wouldn’t give a three in these categories is that the article was more explanatory than it was research question oriented. In tune with this, it doesn’t really address a problem or seeks to explain a proposed statement or question. It is because of these that I would rate lower in these two categories.

Source:

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: 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.

As a consumer of research reports, the most important thing(s) for me in the introduction section of a high-quality research report is the clarity of purpose. If the point of the article isn’t clearly defined at some point in the near beginning then I quickly lose interest. In searching for an example I came across an article about Henry VIII. The renown English King was known for having a foul temper and constant mood swings. Particularly after a major jousting accident that left him with a severely damaged leg for the remainder of his life. The last sentence of this journal article is concise and clearly states the point the author is going to try and prove, “The author presents a hypothesis that absorbed lead from his medications might have been a major factor in King Henry’s personality change” (Charlton, 2017, p. 72). A strong statement like this both further clarifies the title and allows the reader to know exactly where the rest of the article is headed.

The language also has an impact on me. While I expect a high-quality research report to use scholarly language I appreciate when authors are straight-forward with their intentions. If the language is too rich or complex I feel it makes an article unattractive. Take the first sentences of this abstract from an article on cholesterol reduction, “Clinical trials have firmly established that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) can induce the regression of vascular atherosclerosis and reduce cardiovascular-related morbidity and death in patients with and without coronary artery disease” (Comparato & Altana, 2001, p. 328). In this case, despite the fact I know what the title says about the article, the information in the abstract is confusing and has words I am unsure of.

The above-referenced journal article is from one of my sister’s medical textbooks (she is an emergency room doctor). However, it would be interesting if anyone has come across scholarly articles in their own field that they couldn’t decipher language-wise.

References

Charlton, A. (2017). King Henry VIII’s (1491–1547) Personality Change. Sage Journals, 25(2), 72-80. Retrieved January 21, 2018, from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967772017694571

Comparato, C., & Altana, C. (2001). Drug Properties or Effects of Profound Cholesterol Reduction? Europe PMC, 11(5), 328-343. Retrieved January 21, 2018, from http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11887430

I would rate the article a three in every category (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 143) Sendjaya & Sarros have an array of both younger and older sources. Keeping in mind that the article was written in 2002, most of the relevant sources are from the early 2000’s and late 90’s. Being that the article references Jesus and the Bible it can’t go without saying that there are a few older sources included as well! Overall, the authors wanted to give researchers one place where they could get caught up in the field of leadership. Which is also why they have older sources from the 1940’s. Ironically, the article has many sources but takes note of how little there are on the subject of servant leadership, “One reason for the scarcity of research on servant leadership is that the very notion of ‘servant as leader’ is an oxymoron” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p.57). This proves that they are well versed in what research has been done in the area of leadership. In regards to the source list itself, all references are documented properly and are thoughtfully synthesized with the help of appropriate subheadings.

It is clear throughout the article that the sources are supported by the literature and are being used as a solid conceptual framework. Case in point, under the subheading ‘Greenleaf’s Model of Servant Leadership’ there is an explanation of Greenleaf’s model as it pertains to the origin of servant leadership. The section is supported by references and direct quotes from the Greenleaf source. This section also provides good evidence of qualitative research within the article as it compares and contrasts present and past trees and thoughts. Concerning quantitate research, the article doesn’t really contain a lot of studies as evidence. By extension, the article doesn’t contain any illustrations (graphs, charts, surveys, etc.).

Everything about the sources included in this article seems good in all categories. The article wasn’t discussing their own findings or results and so there really isn’t much of a hypothesis or analysis to comment on. They did, however, include a lot of data from different sources to give insight on the basics of servant leadership. I believe the way they integrated sources and presented them was in a comprehensive and easy to follow manner. Overall, there was sufficient information that showed a quality quantitative process.

Sources

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: 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.

I chose the article listed below because it was the topic that most interested me. It did not let me down! I thoroughly enjoyed the reading, particularly how the author compared and contrasted Servant Leadership according to Greenleaf and Jesus. Overall, in my opinion, this article rates as a three because of all the criteria for “Evaluating the Statement of the Problem in a Research Report”(Plano Clark & Crewell, 2015, p.93). The following discussion below explains my reasoning as to why I believe so.

Sendjaya and Sarros explain in their introduction their article doesn’t seek to solve a problem but instead seeks to help future researchers solve problems, “The current developmental stage of the servant leadership movement is explored in order to provide some useful signposts for future research directions. This, to me, is justified reasoning in the importance of their writing. In congruence with this, they clearly identify a preferred audience as future researchers and clearly explain that they want their article to be used as a springboard into further research on the subject. Their article is clearly well warranted.

The passage is well written with recent and numerous sources. It’s as if the authors tried to combine as much research as they could to truly make their work the first step for future researchers. On top of this, they provide researchers with possible topics including the following: Can servant leadership be measured and/or what are some organizational factors that are likely to foster and inhibit servant leadership? (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p.63). Overall, I found the article insightful, useful, scholarly, and professional.

Sources:

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: 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.