Category: LDRS 591

Honestly, I thought I knew all the answers to the questions posted by our instructor Professor Strong in this learning activity. They were what I had learned from the past two months in this course, and basically, they were pretty much like what our Professor had summarized in the Unit 10 Note. For example, examining whether the articles are peer-reviewed, tracing the reputation of both the journal and the author(s), finding out whether the paper has been presented at conferences, looking for the funding source of the research to see if it is prestigious, evaluating each section of the study through the extremely academic and rigorous criteria provided in the textbook (Plano, & Creswell, 2015), figuring out whether the limitations of the research reveal the reality, analyzing the intended audience, and involving critical thinking in the whole procedure, particularly in evaluating the bias hidden in the study, were the essences and also could be the answers to the questions.

Then I watched the video of TED presented by Ben Goldacre. Initially, I was appreciated that he brought up the notion of epidemiology. Epidemiology is quite common in my country because of the prevalence of the Traditional Chinese Medicine. Apparently, there are a lot of unscientific conventions or statements coming from the Traditional Chinese Medicine, and these conventions are still fooling the people right now, even including those Professors and international students. For example, there is a saying that regardless the season and climate, the women cannot take any shower and brush their teeth for a whole month after they give birth to the babies. If the female touched the water in that month, they would get terrible diseases which will be the nightmare of the rest of their life and cannot be easily cured. Even the newspapers are disseminating and bragging about this “Traditionally superior” saying. After that Goldacre (2011) mentioned that “the real science is all about critically appraising the evidence of somebody else’s position”. I have learned four main factors that can be used additionally in evaluating the studies: looking for the reasons for conducting the research rather than the authorities of the authors, examining if the findings are proper science with proper evidence, figuring out whether there is missing data, and focusing on the ethical issue of the study. After that, many examples were illustrated to demonstrate the information of distorted evidence by him. And I was completely shocked. I know the epidemiology all the time but I have never given any thought about the reasons invisibly supporting this phenomenon. If the researchers intentionally distort the evidence, such as moving away half the data, it might be impossible for us to discern the cheating behaviours through the ways mentioned in the first paragraph.

I thought about this “puzzle” for a whole day, and I have found some answers in my mind. The knowledge points mentioned above are the tools for evaluating the various studies. Tools do not think, but we can. In another word, we can use the tools, but we cannot rely on them. We should rely on ourselves. First, we have to learn as much as we can to be knowledgeable in the domain of the research, not only in the domain of evaluating the research. This would serve as a sound basis for discerning the information of the study and make us confident in thinking critically. Second, we should be extremely careful in evaluating every detail of the research and analyzing the reason behind that detail. For instance, we should figure out whether the number of the participants is appropriate and reasonable, and why the researchers chose these participants. Third, we must be aware of any “weird feeling” originating from the evaluating process and keep them in mind. Because sometimes when a group of researchers are cheating together, it will be hard for us to find out the reality just through reading and evaluating. Although we cannot explicitly tell what is wrong with the study, the feelings will be the hints in the future. We must discern our skeptical feelings which might indicate the untrustworthy part of the study.

Not only the tools we gained from this course but also the ability of critical thinking and discerning are all of high significance.

Question: When the evidence of the study is distort intentionally, what strategy might you adopt to find the truth?

Reference

Goldacre, B. (2011). Battling bad science. TEDGlobal 2011. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science

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

Chaudhuri, Kettunen, and Naskar (2015) illustrate that transformational leadership focuses on how the past experience would influence the actions of the future through innovative ideas and views; and servant leadership emphasizes collective power, collaboration and the empowerment of followers. Furthermore, transformational servant leadership is defined as “the ability to cast a collaborative moral vision while actively caring for those participating in moving the vision to reality” (Parolini, 2012, p. 13). As far as I am concerned, a leader who is embedded in transformational servant leadership style would consciously collaborate and care about his staff at the same time. In order to implement the vision, a transformational servant leader would carefully communicate and guide the staff to make it come true. Parolini (2012) also states that the transformational servant leader will not grasp an opportunity just because it makes him or her instantly feel good. On the contrary, when a transformational servant leader is making decisions, more aspects and different perspectives should be taken into consideration.

Based on what I learned from this course, the evidence-based practice encompasses critical thinking, rigorous evaluation, academic researches, and well-thought-out procedures. In addition, when evidence-based practice is applied to decision making, the various perspectives matter a lot. Apparently, all the features of evidence-based practice resonate with the essential needs of the transformational servant leadership. In order to make the decision more comprehensive, first, a transformational servant leader would collaborate his staff’s ideas; second, the leader would communicate thoroughly with each of them to see their real thoughts and potential needs; third, combining all kinds of perspectives, the transformational servant leader would cultivate a common belief towards both the staff and the organization and completely support personal integration to fulfill the goals (Chaudhuri, Kettunen, & Naskar, 2015). The evidence-based practice could help the leader find sound evidence (such as academic evidence) serving as the theoretical basis for the decision before collaborating the staff’s ideas. Then, the rigorous evaluation and critical thinking could help the leader better analyze the personal needs of the staff in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the various perspectives, which are emphasized in evidence-based practice, play a significant role in decision making of transformational servant leadership as well. After all, the decision made by a transformational servant leader will be aiming at serving both the staff and the organization eventually. The evidence-based decision would be not only rigorous and logical but also thoughtful and mature.

References

Chaudhuri, M. R., Kettunen, J., & Naskar, P. (2015). Transformational and servant leadership: Evidence from Indian higher education. Online J. Qual. High. Educ, 2(4), 93-101.

Parolini, J. (2012). Transformational Servant Leadership. Maitland, Florida: Xulon Press.

https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-10-learning-activities/

I would like to restate my original decision that I posted in unit 1. I am one of the mentors in the company and my job is to regularly pass the knowledge and skills required in the work to all the new staff and part of the old staff. Last year, I decided to change their course arrangement to make the timetable perfect for everyone.

Most of the old staff resisted this change at first for thinking that their arrangement for personal time would be changed as well. Therefore, I made a survey and did the research to find out the available time for everyone. I also adjusted the arrangement of different courses to make sure everyone was on the right course and right time. At last, the new timetable was implemented.

After taking this class, based on what I have gained for the last two month, I think I should not have just technically found out their available time through the survey. It would be better for me to consider my decision from other perspectives and then make up my mind. First, I could look for some documents and literature to see if there is a better way to rearrange the course or another way to help the staff. In addition, I could ask my manager to obtain his opinion, talk to my colleagues (the other mentors) to see their perspectives, and “interview” some staff to find out the reasons why they would accept the new timetable or refuse to accept. Furthermore, I would like to make the implementation a spiral process. If there were anything unsuitable during the implementation, I would go back to the problem or the other parts to reconsider and adjust the process. All these procedures and critical thinking above would make the decision more comprehensive and mature.

The most important thing I gained from this course is critical thinking. I have realized that critical thinking should be applied to not only reviewing articles but also decision making and other issues in work and life.

https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-10-learning-activities/

The most important thing for me about the conclusions section of a high-quality research report is the way in which the researchers depict the limitations of their research.

According to the seven elements of the Conclusion section, I believe each author has his or her own preference to express these elements. I think that except the limitations of the study, the other six elements do not have to be judged extremely rigorous by the other researchers and readers. For example, the summary of the major results can also be concluded through gradually reading each part of the research by the readers. We could compare the summary concluded by ourselves to the one presented in the Conclusion section to see if we have realized the results in the right way. But the limitations of the study is a unique one. Limitations mean weaknesses or problems. They could reflect if the researchers understand their own research in an unbiased, critical way; they also provide a window for the readers to observe the real thoughts of the researchers. Actually, there is no flawless research, and reading any study requires critical thinking (Plano & Creswell, 2015). The readers can perceive the problems after reading the study through own critical thinking and examine the limitations presented by the researchers. If the limitations were insufficient to reveal the weaknesses of the study, it would be possible for us to infer that the researchers are not performing academically or trying to hide some problems.

Additionally, I want to mention the reference list. Not all researchers plan to provide four kinds of back matter in the report, but every research would contain at least the reference list. I usually did not spend too much time on it or examine the information contained in it. But in the assignment 2 of this course, our instructor Professor Strong carefully noted every misinformation in my reference list. At that time, I realized that the reference list was not just simply gathering the information. The accuracy and validity of the information were more important and were of high significance to the audience. Now, I would carefully check the reference list provided not only by myself but also by other researchers.

Question: What kind of strategy would you adopt to evaluate the limitations of the study?

Reference

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

Unit 9 Learning Activities

Article

Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. Journal of Business Inquiry: Research, Education and Application, 9(1), 74-88.

Quality Criteria

1. The major results are identified and summarized.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers have summarized the results in the Discussion section. In the first sentence of the Discussion section, they have stated that the results are key for answering the research questions

b) The researchers then thoroughly interpret three principal characteristics of the servant leader which are wisdom, organizational stewardship, and altruistic calling.

c) The results for Hypothesis 2 are presented after the interpretation and followed by the implications of the results.

Quality Criteria

2. The results are thoughtfully examined in relation to the literature and personal reflections.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The results are explicitly compared to the prior research (such as Barbuto and Wheeler’s study) in the Result section, not in the Discussion section.

b) The researchers objectively present the results of the quantitative data.

c) As for the qualitative part, I could identify several sentences in the second paragraph of the Discussion section, such as “Certainly, in order for an individual to be considered a good leader, he or she must be trusted to be knowledgeable and competent about the business” (Melchar & Bosco, 2010, p. 84). I prefer to consider them as the researchers’ personal reflections.

Quality Criteria

3. Appropriate implications of the results for practice are identified and justified.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers point out two aspects of implications in the Discussion section, and the suggestions stemming from the study results are clearly advanced.

b) Although the researchers do not explicitly mention the specific-audience group, I tend to believe the leaders in the demanding, high-performance industry will benefit from the knowing the results of the study. The other researchers who would like to explore on this topic would also be benefited as well.

Quality Criteria

4. Thoughtful critiques of the study’s limitations are provided and appropriate for the research approach.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The researchers have presented two limitations: first, the results may not be generalizable to other types of for-profit environment; second, the sample size was small.

Quality Criteria

5. Suitable implications of the results for future research are identified and justified.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers have suggested that the servant leadership should be studied empirically in other environments.

b) Additionally, they have stated “further examination of the main components of servant leadership, particularly trust, valuing of others and ethical conduct could further expand important knowledge relating to employee empowerment and productivity” (Melchar & Bosco, 2010, p. 85).

Quality Criteria

6. The interpretations are consistent with the study.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The overall conclusions are logical and consistent with the study’s purpose and the research questions.

b) The researchers analyze the results of the two hypotheses, and interpret the implications in a logical way.

Quality Criteria

7. The back matter is appropriate for the study report.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The researchers provide information including Author Notes (p. 74) and the list of references after the Limitations and Conclusions section.

Total Score = 18 (17-21 = High quality)

References

Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. Journal of Business Inquiry: Research, Education and Application, 9(1), 74-88.

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

Unit 9 Learning Activities

Peer-review Omolewa’s podcast

https://create.twu.ca/lewa/2018/02/22/ldrs591-unit-8-learning-activity-8-2-podcast/

Quality Criteria

1. The research focuses on a real problem in practice or the local community.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

Omolewa has thoroughly illustrated two problems: helping the female group be aware of the cancer and get access to the treatment and the difficulties of raising funds. The reasons which lead to this problem have been analyzed as well, such as the religious belief and the adverse effect of the culture.

Quality Criteria

2. The researcher is a practitioner and/or collaborates with community members.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) Omolewa is a women health advocate and she has founded LEAH foundation, a non-profit organization that is devoted to the survival of the woman.

b) Omolewa actively collaborates with the team members in her foundation in a respectful way.

Quality Criteria

3. The research process includes careful reflection about the problem.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) Omolewa and her co-researchers have collected relevant information and talked with others in the organization and local community. They have analyzed the reasons leading to the current practices, such as the local female are not willing to attend the cancer diagnostic and screening programmes and hardly raising funds for this project.

b) Omolewa actively reflected on her own professional development and shared with her colleagues, participants, and people who have the same passion as she do.

Quality Criteria

4. Multiple sources of good information are used.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) Omolewa explicitly mentioned that she would first explore relevant literature to see if there is any useful suggestions to solve the problem of fundings.

b) Then, she would gather available information and sources through all the non-profit organizations which face the same challenges.

Quality Criteria

5. A good action plan is advanced.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) Omolewa decided to adopt the mixed methods research design for her action plan. I hold the same opinion because the nature of her problem is quite complicated and requires considering a lot of aspects from different perspectives. Therefore, the mixed methods research design is the best choice.

b) She would design surveys to gather quantitative data from the community, together with organizing interviews with individuals and organizations to find out what have previously supported the non-profit communities. After the analyzation of both quantitative and qualitative data, she believes that there will be some particular findings for her situation.

Quality Criteria

6. The study used a good action research process.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The research process includes reflecting and thinking, looking and gathering information, and acting.

b) Omolewa mentioned that she and the team would monitor the outcomes of the solutions and make adjustment accordingly. Clearly, the process includes multiple spirals.

Quality Criteria

7. The study results in meaningful actions to address the problem.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

I believe the actions took by Omolewa and her team will provide workable solutions to the problem. Also, I deem that she will conquer the leadership issue as well for detecting the strong will through the podcast. In addition, I would like to suggest Omolewa reunite the publicity in the action research to gain wider opinions and perspectives. (I am not sure whether this suggestion is appropriate for her situation. )

Total Score = 21 (17-21 = High quality)

Omolewa has planned a well-thought-out action research. I personally admire her courage and passion and really wish the research would work out.

Reference

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

https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-8-learning-activities/

I am working in a branch company of State Grid in China. The State Grid is a state-owned electric utility monopoly of China, the largest utility company in the world, and on the Global 500 List (“State Grid”). According to the profession and the nature of the vocation in this company, I have located three distinctly practical problems.

First one: Since the vocation requires a lot of going out errands, the female workers are basically unable to accomplish the principal work especially after giving birth to the child. Not to mention the tacit complaint from the male workers, the female workers are struggling with job worries and would feel insecure and useless. Particularly, some of us are with adults anxiety.

Second one: Because the nature of the job is mainly associated with the safety of high voltage electricity, the company holds plenty of examinations about the content of the electrical safety every year to raise the sense of safety consciousness. The examinations seem to be acceptable for the new and young employers, but the senior workers (especially from 40 to 50) find them irritating and resist to take them. They think they are too old to remember all the content. They also deem that they have been working for more than 20 years, so there is no need for them to take the exams to be aware of the safety issues.

Third one: The labour discipline has been a great issue in this company for many years. Most of the male workers would go back home earlier if they just finish their work of going out errands and return back. They are allowed to go back earlier before the closing time because they might be out for a few days and want to go back home to have a shower or meet their families as soon as possible. While, the other staff, who are not going out in that day, think they can go home earlier randomly as well. It is a very bad influence, and the labour discipline is hard to manage.

Reference

State Grid. (2017). Fortune Global 500. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/global500/state-grid/