Category: LDRS 591

Article

Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299-314.

Quality Criteria

1. The rationale for needing mixed methods research is appropriate and justified.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) I am very impressed that the author explicitly states the mixed methods study in the title because the this type of research design is more complicated than quantitative and qualitative research. It is considerate of the author to inform the readers in the first place.

b) The author explains the current situation that most of the servant leadership studies are ambiguous, anecdotal, and lack of empirical analyses in the Introduction section.

c) Then the researcher provides two reasons to justify the use of mixed methods.

Quality Criteria

2. The choice of the mixed methods design is appropriate and justified.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researcher has chosen the sequential explanatory research design consisted of two distinct phases: quantitative followed by qualitative.

b) The researcher claims that quantitative results alone may be inadequate because of the complexities of leadership, so qualitative data are needed to help explain initial quantitative data.

c) It is easy to conclude that the quantitative component has the priority through the actual words in the Methodology and Procedure section and the timing through the subtitles in this section. (QUAN → qual)

Quality Criteria

3. The quantitative methods are of good quality based on the standards of quantitative research.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) A web-based survey using the Servant Leadership Questionnaire is applied to collecting data.

b) Participants are recruited from a group of leaders who have met the criteria set by the researcher, and there are 499 leaders and 630 raters.

c) The analyses of the gathered data of phase 1 (quantitative research) is presented before phase 2.

d) The participants’ and raters’ ethnicity are thoroughly discussed in the study, as well as the characteristics of them.

e) The instrument used in the phase 1 is well explained. There is a table presenting all the variables under different subscales.

f) The researcher states that descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations serve as the basis for analyzing the independent and dependent variables. The statistically significant results are also demonstrated in the study.

Quality Criteria

4. The qualitative methods are of good quality based on the standards of qualitative research.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researcher uses the in-depth one-on-one audio taped interviews for the qualitative study (phase 2).

b) 12 leaders are purposively selected to participate in this phase.

c) The interview protocol includes nine open-ended questions which are pilot tested for clarity with graduate students in a leadership studies program. The interview protocol and questions are presented in the appendix.

e) There are actual words said by participants presenting in the study.

f) In order to create an accurate record of the data and to treat the participants respectfully, the participants are informed that the interview will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In addition, the participants review the transcripts of their interviews to clarify or refine their responses as needed.

g) The procedures of analyzing the qualitative data are all of high quality, including rereading and coding the data, narrowing down the scale of the data, claiming the reliabilities and validity of the data, and so on.

Quality Criteria

5. The quantitative and qualitative components of the study are meaningfully mixed.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researcher illustrate four major findings in the Findings section. Especially, the researcher mentions that “Where appropriate, quantitative data are woven in with the interview data to augment and strengthen the discussion” (Beck, 2014, p. 305).

b) The researcher explicitly discusses the interaction and the connection of the quantitative and qualitative components after presenting each finding.

c) It is clear that all the qualitative findings help to explain the quantitative results.

d) In the Discussion section, the qualitative, quantitative, and mixed results are explicitly discussed.

Quality Criteria

6. The study used a rigorous application of mixed methods research to address the purpose.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The mixed methods design fits well with the research problem and purpose mentioned in the beginning of the study. Also, the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed aspects of the study fit together in a logical way.

Quality Criteria

7. The use of mixed methods produced a good understanding of the research purpose.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The findings provide complete, valid, and in-depth answers to the study’s research questions. Evidently, the integrated findings go beyond what was learned from the separate quantitative results and qualitative findings.

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

I really like this study. The information is complete and clear, the analyses are thorough and in-depth, the findings combining the quantitative results and qualitative findings are impressive. I will use it as a template when I am going to conduct a mixed methods design research.

References

Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299-314.

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

Unit 7 Learning Activities

Question 1. What is at the heart of the quantitative/qualitative debate?

I think that the philosophy of the quantitative/qualitative research is the essence of the debate. In another word, it is vital to understand the “attitude” of the research rather than merely choosing a technical method for the research. According to Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002), the quantitative research is based on positivism, and the qualitative research is based on interpretivism and constructivism. They also suggest that the only objective reality is at the heart of the quantitative research, but there are multiple realities based on one’s construction of reality in a qualitative research (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002). Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) explain the differences in a more detailed way. Whether the research problems are calling for explanation or exploration, whether the purposes are specific or general, whether the role of the researcher is objective or subjective, are all associated with the “attitude” of the research (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015).

Understanding the philosophical position of the quantitative/qualitative research and distinguishing it from the methodology of the quantitative/qualitative research is significant for researchers to decide whether to use mixed methods research or not. The prevalence of using mixed methods research would make the researchers overlook the underlying characteristics of the two types. Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) state although integrations of quantitative and qualitative research are common “does not mean that it is always appropriate to do so” (p. 43). The researchers will think of the two types of research as merely technical methods if they are blurred about the philosophical distinctions of the two. Correctly understanding the philosophies and methodologies of the quantitative and qualitative research will provide a sound basis for conducting a mixed methods research.

Question 2. How has mixed methods been seen as a remedy for advancing leadership research?

Before answering this question, I would like to add my personal opinion that if using appropriately, the mixed methods can be seen as remedy for most of the research. Because the mixed methods’ central premise is that “the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2007, p. 5).

Realizing the potential power of the mixed methods, researchers have conducted many studies to combine the objective and subjective views towards a better understanding of leadership as a complex phenomenon (Stentz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012). First, “researchers can maximize the strengths of each approach while making up the weaknesses of the approaches, develop more complete and complementary understanding, increase validity of results, use one form to build on the results of the other, and/or examine contextualized understanding, multi-level perspectives, and cultural influences” (Stentz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012, p. 1174). For example, Northhouse (2015) mentions that the researchers are able to understand how culture impacts leader effectiveness in a generalizable way through the mixed methods research. Second, the complex nature of leadership research problems calls for the support of mixed methods researches. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods can lead to the most complete analysis in both laboratory and fieldwork contexts (Stentz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012). Third, the increasingly published mixed methods leadership researches can help researchers get access to new knowledge about the nature of leadership and to the way of successfully applying this research approach in the field. Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, and Cogliser (2010) suggest that the publishing mixed methods articles are crucial for bringing empirical rigor and facilitating the adoption of this diverse research strategies.

My question: In your opinion, which characteristic(s) or section(s) is(are) the most meaningful thing(s) in a mixed methods research?

References

Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 922-958. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003

Northhouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43-53. doi: 10.1023/A:1014301607592

Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices: Corrigendum. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 711. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.006

Unit 7 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports, the most important things for me in the methods and results section of a high-quality qualitative research report are correctly identifying the type of the research design and applying own critical thinking to the data collection and the themes.

Reflecting on the knowledge I have gained this week, I find the hardest part for me is to identify the qualitative research design when the study does not explicitly state the type. Occasionally, I will mix the case study research design with the other types. Although there is a great difference between qualitative research and quantitative research, making sure the research design used in the study is the primary step. Unlike quantitative research which is quite easy to address the research design, the qualitative research has a much wider design list, especially some of them are quite similar. Table 9.1 on page 289 of the textbook has provided a useful summary of each type and can be used as a standard to identify the design of a study as well. Furthermore, preparing a close understanding of the key characteristics is extremely helpful for both recognizing the type and the quality of the research design, such as how the research problem has been raised, how the data is gathered and analyzed, and how the findings are illustrated.

Since the end of last week, I have realized the significant role of own critical thinking in reviewing the study. I think the procedures for data collection and analysis of the qualitative research are easier to understand but more complicated than those of the quantitative research. One’s own critical thinking is especially crucial for understanding a qualitative research because the purpose of it is to explore a central phenomenon. In addition, it is impossible for the researchers to be completely objective during the whole process of the study. For example, different researchers will not extract the same codes based on the words of the participants. Therefore, the findings built from the codes and coded data will be distinctive. Also, the themes emerged from the analysis of the data may address different major aspects. The readers have to be aware of the accuracy of the data and whether the coding procedures and the findings are justified and unbiased all the time.

Actually, keeping critical thinking is the most interesting part for me when reading a qualitative study. It is like a dialogue between me and the researchers in my mind. I would explore the ways they are using for understanding and studying the problem initially, then compare to my own feelings and suggestions about what they have found in the procedures of the exploration. And my question is:

How to balance the judgments generated by you in the process of reading the research article with the findings presented by the researchers, especially when they are apparently different?

Reference

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

Unit 6 Learning Activities

Article

The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement

Quality Criteria

1.The analysis process used rigorous qualitative procedures.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers stated in the study that transcription of the responses were derived from audio recording and a professional transcriber transferred verbal data to written form.

b) Rather than using computerized software that may prohibit the detection of subtle themes, the researchers adopted the strategy of manual coding through key-words-in-text to get a deeper insight to the meaning of words and themes.

c) Given the major concern of separating out personal bias or perceived conclusions, Epoche was applied to address the concern.

d) The researchers used the modified van Kaam method to analyze the data, The seven steps were presented thoroughly and this process led to the findings and themes based on the analyzed data.

e) Although the researchers did not claim clearly, I deemed the list of servant leader quality of Table 1 was the list of the in vivo codes summarized by the researchers.

Quality Criteria

2.Strategies were used to validate the findings.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

Only bracketing and triangulation were identified to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the findings.

Quality Criteria

3.The findings include a description of the people, places, or events in the study.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The description of the detailed rendering of participants and places is in the method section.

b) The six questions are asked in a broad-to-narrow way.

c) The authors focus on facts and simply report the questions and answers in the results section, which are different from the themes representing the authors’ interpretations.

d) There are participants quotes under each question that provide emphasis and realism in the account.

Quality Criteria

4.The findings include appropriate themes about the central phenomenon.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) There are five themes reported.

b) The themes convey both major ideas about and the complexity of the central phenomenon. Theme 1 uses sub-themes and multiple perspectives; theme 2 uses literary devices and contrary opinion; theme 3 uses multiple perspectives; theme 4 uses sub-themes and multiple perspectives; theme 5 uses multiple perspectives.

c) There is no evidence of participant quotes appearing in the themes.

Quality Criteria

5.The findings relate multiple themes to each other.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The researchers analyze and report the interconnections among theme 4, theme 5 and other aspects in the discussion section. But the researchers have not conveyed the relationships among all five themes clearly in the text. However, the themes are interconnected and consistent with the overall case study research design.

Quality Criteria

6.The data analysis represents a good qualitative process.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) Although the data analysis is an inductive and interpretive process, I think the process lacks of dynamic.

b) The results emerge from the data are credible and accurate.

Quality Criteria

7.The findings provide a good exploration of the central phenomenon.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The rigorous logic and detailed information of the findings make the findings perfect for answering the research questions.

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

References

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

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

https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-6-learning-activities/

 

Article

The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement

Quality Criteria

1.The sampling strategy is appropriate and justified.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers explain clearly in the method section about the reason of intentionally choosing Celebration Restaurant as the site.

b) Although the researchers do not explicitly offer the name of the purposeful sampling strategy, it is easy to conclude that the maximal variation sampling strategy is adopted in this study. Because the participants are selected based on several criteria (Carter & Baghurst, 2014).

c) The procedures are fully described and match the maximal variation sampling strategy.

d) The researchers provide strong reasons for selecting the maximal variation sampling strategy in the beginning of the method section.

Quality Criteria

2.The sample size is appropriate and justified.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) There are 11 individuals participating the study, which means the sample size is sufficiently small so the researchers can capture rich detail.

b) The sample size is consistent with the case study research design.

c) A sound rationale is provided in the participants subsection to justify the sample size is appropriate.

Quality Criteria

3.The data types are appropriate.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The researchers collect different types of data including focus group data, documented data, direct and non-obtrusive observations, and focus group interviews with open-ended semi-structured questions. These types are appropriate for the case study research design.

Quality Criteria

4.The data are gathered using rigorous qualitative procedures.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers gather information using open-ended forms to learn about participants’ perspectives and experiences.

b) The data are tape recorded for professional transcription, and the researchers take notes as able.

Quality Criteria

5.Data collection issues are handled ethically and thoughtfully.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The participants have read the consent and confidentiality statements and they have the opportunity to withdraw their participation as well as reserve the right to withdraw their participation once the focus groups are completed.

b) The training room is selected for the convenience of the participants and to maintain a level of comfort for them.

c) The participants are compensated for their time.

Quality Criteria

6.The selected participants are information rich.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The sites and participants clearly fit the study purpose.

b) Two focus groups have achieved data saturation.

Quality Criteria

7.The database provides extensive and credible information about the central phenomenon.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The study does not explicitly present the extensive database, but the multiple types of open-ended data collected in two-month period are clearly related to the study’s intent.

Total Score = 20 (17-21 = High quality)

References

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

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

https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-6-learning-activities/

Article

The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement

Quality Criteria

1.A research design guides the conduct of the qualitative study.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers do not explicitly state the type of the research design, but they mention this article as a phenomenological study. Therefore, I believe this study adopts the case study research design.

b) The researchers correctly use several terms of a case study research design, such as themes. In addition, the research problem clearly calls for an in-depth exploration of understanding the influence of servant leadership on employee engagement from both a follower and leader perspective.

c) There is plenty of up-to-date literature cited in the study to support the research.

Quality Criteria

2.The choice of the research design is appropriate and justified.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The two research questions are clearly presented in the introduction section that aim to explore two cases: one is to explore the experience of servant leadership through lived-experience, the other one is to explore the experience and perception of employees.

b) The researchers illustrate the reason why the phenomenological study is used in this study right after the two research questions.

Quality Criteria

3.Good qualitative data collection procedures are used.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The procedures include collecting focus group data and documented data, direct and non-obtrusive observations, and interviews. The procedures are appropriate for the case study research design.

b) I think the procedures are used rigorously, although I have not finished reading chapter 10.

Quality Criteria

4.Good qualitative data analysis procedures are used.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The researchers use a seven-step process to analyze data and they state that this process has led to findings and themes based on the analyzed data.

b) The researchers particularly identify the five themes in a section. Although I am not familiar with the procedures of analyzing themes, I think they are rigorous.

Quality Criteria

5.Good qualitative results and interpretations are reported.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

a) The results section includes a rich description of the focus group responses and a thorough presentation of the themes.

b) Although I am not familiar with the procedures of analyzing results, I think  they are rigorous.

Quality Criteria

6.The study used a rigorous research design.

Rate

2=Good

Evidence and/or Reasoning

Given the qualitative design is a case study research design, most of the elements of a case study design could be identified are depicted in a logical and coherent way.

Quality Criteria

7.The use of the qualitative research design addressed the study’s purpose.

Rate

3=Excellent

Evidence and/or Reasoning

The researchers analyze the findings from different aspects, and all the findings provide a rich exploration that answers the study’s research questions.

Total Score = 19 (17-21 = High quality)

References

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

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

 

Unit 6 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports, the most important things for me in the methods and results section of a high-quality quantitative research report are identifying the type of the quantitative research design, making sure the measures used to gather the data are good quality, and understanding the statistics.

According to the knowledge gained in this unit, I found an important thing for better understanding a research report from each chapter. The first one is to address the quantitative research design of the study. It is the foundation of understanding the analysis in the study. Because the data collection and the results analysis will correspond to the research design, it is crucial to make sure the direction is right before reading further to meet the following sections.

The second one is to determine whether the instruments are high quality. Before reading the chapter seven, I had no idea about the reliability and validity of the scores from the instruments. I just thought the scores were definitely reliable. The author presented a bathroom scale example to illustrate that the numbers obtained from the instruments could be inaccurate or unreliable. Then I realized that I had not considered the reliability and validity of the scores before because all the studies I had read were journal articles. They were all peer-reviewed and were reliable sources. The explanations of the Reliable and Valid have raised my awareness of the scores gathered from the instruments. Given that one day I may have a chance to conduct my study, the data and scores acting as the most important element have to be correct, accurate, and reliable.

The last one is understanding the statistics in the study. Basically, I used to quickly review the statistics in the result and method section because I did not understand the meaning of the symbols and numbers. Although I am still not very familiar with the definitions of some measures, such as the standard deviation and the effect size, I have gained a general framework of all the statistics, measures, and how they relate to each other, such as statistically significant and nonsignificant result. It is significant for me to analyze the statistics and measures by myself rather than just reading the report presented by the researcher. Furthermore, analyzing the statistics by myself is greatly helpful to build the sense of critical thinking during reading the articles in the future.

My question is: How do you evaluate the results of a quantitative study when the information of the statistics or instruments is not clear enough?

Reference

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

Unit 5 Learning Activities