Layla Zhang

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/

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