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 (1) a detailed description of the procedures and (2) evidence that steps were taken to check the validity of the data collected.

1. It is important to have a detailed description of the procedures so that the reader and future researchers can replicate the study and make adjustments for future research. As well, a detailed description allows other researchers who are reading the study to identify weaknesses or strengths in the process, which allows for better assessment of the results. I would be weary of the results drawn from a data collection process that is unclear or vague.
2. Evidence of data validation is important because of the general subjective nature of qualitative studies. As a student with a mathematics and science background, I am used to seeing results derived from empirical data and calculations. It is sometimes difficult for me to accept qualitative data as facts. However, reading about methods used to validate data allows me better understand that solid results can be drawn from qualitative observations and responses.

My question is: Is it possible to combine a qualitative and quantitative study? For example, could a researcher include an empirical data collection method as well as a qualitative response method into one study? What would be the benefits and disadvantages of doing so? 

Original assignment post found here.

For this activity, I chose to focus on Carter and Baghurst’s (2014) article The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement.

1. Did the researcher(s) use at least three strategies to validate the findings?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the authors checked the validity of their results through careful participant selection, triangulation, a modified van Kaam method (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 456). Careful participation selection was employed by recruiting participants through carefully written emails and assuring each employee of the confidentiality of their responses (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 456). This was necessary so that employees would not feel obligated to participate or feel that their employment would be affected by their participation, or lack thereof, in the study  (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 456). Triangulation of survey responses and work observations were done on the data collected as well  (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 456). Lastly, Carter and Baghurst (2014) used a modified van Kaam method to sort and group the data collected (p. 456).
2. Did the findings include a good description of the people, places, or events in the study?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the findings included a thorough description of the process and procedure of the study  (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455-459). The authors specified the location of the focus groups, which was at the restaurant for the sake of comfort and convenience for the participants  (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455). The authors listed all five questions asked in the focus groups as well as the general theme of the answers given by the participants  (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 457-459).
3. Did the findings include appropriate themes about the central phenomenon?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the authors grouped their findings into five themes regarding servant leadership (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 459-460). The themes were servant leadership experience, why people stay, servant leadership traits, impact of servant leadership, and application of servant leadership (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 459-460).
4. Did the findings provide a good exploration of the central phenomenon?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the authors discussed the findings and and made insightful and detailed connections to servant leadership (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 459-460).

References

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement. Journal Of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453-464. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0

Original assignment post found here.

For this activity, I chose to focus on Carter and Baghurst’s (2014) article The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement.

1. What sampling strategy is used and is it appropriate and justified?
   Rating: 3/3
   Purposeful sampling was used for this study (Carter & Baghurst, 2014). The researchers specifically choose employees from a restaurant where servant leadership was recognized (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455). More specifically, homogeneous sampling was used when the researchers chose participants based on a specific criteria (eg. needed to have a minimum of 5 years experience with the restaurant) (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455).
2. Is the sample size appropriate?
   Rating: 2/3
   The sample size for this quite small with only 11 participants (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455). However, given that the participants needed to fulfill specific criteria (minimum of 5 years experience working in a restaurant recognized for it’s servant leadership), the low sample size is understandable (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455).
3. Is the data collected appropriate?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the researcher discussed in detail how they aimed to collect the data as accurately as possible (Carter & Baghurst, 2014). To ensure familiarity and comfort for the participants, the interviews were held at the participants’ workplace (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455). The interviews were held in two focus groups; one group of 5 and one group of 6 (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455). A total of five questions were asked and each participant was given a chance to give their input (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455).
4. Are the data gathered ethically and thoughtfully?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the authors assured participants that their responses would be kept confidential and a facilitator who was not connected to the restaurant was used for all interviews (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455). Restaurant management gave permission for the data to be collected and participants were paid for their time during the interviews as part of their work day (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 455).

References

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement. Journal Of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453-464. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0

Original assignment post found here.

For this activity, I chose to focus on Carter and Baghurst’s (2014) article The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement.

1. What research design was used to guide the study? Was it justified?
   Rating: 3/3
   Carter and Baghurst (2014) used a phenomenological research design to study the effects of servant leadership on the experiences of 11 restaurant employees. This was the most appropriate research design to study the “lived experience” of servant leadership (Waters, 2017). Many of the sources that the authors cited were written within the last 10 years of the article’s publication date so recent and relevant literature was used. Since there is very little research on the effects of employee engagement as a result of servant leadership, the authors posit that their a phenomenological research design will “explore servant leadership from both a follower and leader perspective through personal examples in an effort to gain an understanding of the influence of servant leadership on employee engagement” (Carter & Baghurst 2014, p. 455).
2. Does the qualitative research design address the study’s purpose?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, the phenomenological research designed allowed the researchers to interview 11 restaurant employees over a course of two months. They asked strategically chosen questions that allowed them to gauge how servant leadership from management affected the level of employee engagement at the restaurant (Carter & Baghurst, 2014). Results showed that because of the environment of self-development and growth, employees were able to build meaningful relationships with their managers and their coworkers (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 462). This allowed employees to feel more ownership in their positions and to be more motivated to deliver exceptional service to customers (Carter & Baghurst, 2014, p. 462).

References

Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee Engagement. Journal Of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453-464. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0

Waters. J. (2017). Phenomenological Research Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.capilanou.ca/psychology/student-resources/research-guidelines/Phenomenological-Research-Guidelines/

Original assignment post found here.

The article I chose to focus on for this unit is The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction by Yusuf Cerit.

1. Were descriptive analyses reported?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, Cerit (2009) uses descriptive statistics to analyze the data collected (p. 609-610). He (2009) details the different statistical tests and calculations used to statistically analyze the data (p. 608-610). Since the variables were continuous, Cerit (2009) found the mean and standard deviations of the variables (p. 610).
2. What inferential statistics were used? (e.g., correlations, regression analysis, ANOVA, t-test)
   Rating: 3/3
   Cerit (2009) used Pearson correlations to determine a relationship between servant leadership and teacher job satisfaction (p. 610). He (2009) then confirmed his finding by using multiple regression analysis to find the effects of servant leadership on teacher job satisfaction (p. 610).
3. What were the results? (What was found?)
   Rating: 3/3
   Based on the analysis of the collected data, Cerit (2009) found that servant leadership subscales were positive and significantly correlated with the intrinsic, extrinsic, and total job satisfaction of teachers (p. 611 – 612). Regression analysis showed that servant leadership characteristics in principals were strong predictors of teacher job satisfaction (Cerit, 2009, p. 612).
4. Did the analysis represent a good quantitative process?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, while my limited knowledge of statistical testing does now allow me to fully understand the tests that Cerit (2009) used in his study, his explanations of the factors and statistics appear objective and the process was impartial and linear. My mathematical background allows me to understand some of the more basic statistical processes he used and to me, those seem valid and correct (Cerit, 2009, p. 610).

References

Cerit, Y. (2009). The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.

Original assignment post found here. 

The article I chose to focus on for this unit is The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction by Yusuf Cerit.

1. What sampling strategy was used and was it justified?
   Rating: 1/3
   The participants were 700 public primary school teachers from the province of Duzce in Turkey (Cerit, 2009, p. 608). While Cerit (2009) does detail the gender and professional and academic background of the teachers, he fails to describe the rationale and procedure of the sample selection (p. 608).
2. Is the sample size appropriate and justified?
   Rating: 2/3
   The sample size of 700 is fairly large (Cerit, 2009, p. 608). Cerit (2009) does describe a method of measuring variances in his collected data in the procedures (p. 610) but he does not make attempts to explain or justify the sample size.
3. Are good quality measures used to gather data? How do you know they are good quality?
   Rating: 1/3
   Cerit (2009) collected the data using questionnaires with 68 items (p. 608). For qualitative characteristics such as this, this is the only way to quantify the results. However, Cerit (2009) does not give further information on how the data was collected or what kind of instructions were given to the participants. We are left to assume that proper and consistent instructions were given to all the participants. Cerit (2009) only lists examples of the items that were included in the questionnaire (p. 608). He (2009) details the breakdown of the type of questions asked but not the specific questions (p. 608-609).
4. Are the data gathered using ethical procedures?
   Rating: 1/3
   Cerit (2009) does describe in detail the process of collecting the data so we are left to assume that ethical procedures were used. Since the participants were all adult professionals, we can assume that all of them are capable to ensuring that they were treated ethically and professionally.

References

Cerit, Y. (2009). The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.

Original assignment post found here. 

The article I chose to focus on for this unit is The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction by Yusuf Cerit.

1. What quantitative research design is used and is it justified?
   Rating: 2/3
   The researcher used a questionnaire consisting of 68 items to research how the behaviours of principals affected the teachers who worked under them in Turkish schools (Cerit, 2009, p. 608). While this is a good way to quantify a normally very qualitative topic, there are some serious limitations to this study. For example, the researcher assumes that all the participants will have strong self-assessment and evaluation skills. The entire study is based on the teachers’ ability to quantitatively assess the behaviours of their principals and also their own performance in their positions. There was no standard scale for the participating teachers to use so a rating of 1 to one teacher could be completely different from a rating of 1 to another teacher.
2. Are good quantitative procedures used to select and assign participants?
   Rating: 2/3
   The participants were 700 teachers from 29 public primary schools in the province of Duzce in Turkey (Cerit, 2009, p. 608). This is a good sample population because it includes all primary public school teachers in this province. However, this also introduces uncontrollable factors beyond principal behaviours such as different school environments, student demographics, and staff culture. These are uncontrolled variables that could affect teachers’ job satisfaction.
3. Are good quantitative data collection procedures used?
   Rating: 2/3
   Yes, Cerit (2009) use a a 5 point scale questionnaire to collect quantitative data from the participants. He then uses a complicated statistical tests to find correlation between principal behaviours and corresponding staff satisfaction (Cerit, 2009, p. 608). However, the teachers only took the questionnaire once and the test was not repeated.
4. Does the quantitative research design address the study’s purpose?
   Rating: 3/3
   Yes, Cerit (2009) was able to find direct correlation between principal behaviours and teacher satisfaction in their positions (p. 613). The results answer the study’s research question clearly.

References

Cerit, Y. (2009). The Effects of Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600-623.

Original assignment post found here. 

This is my response to Oliver Parsons’ post for Learning Activity 4.5.

Oliver (2018) asked the questions: “What is one thing that acts as a “deal-breaker” for you in the introduction of an article? What is one thing that a researcher may say that would stop you from reading beyond the introduction?”

Hi Oliver,

For me, it is not so much what is written explicitly in the article that can act as a deal-breaker for me, but rather the tone that it is written in. I veer away from articles where the authors appear to be biased or partial to certain perspectives of the research topic. While I understand that bias cannot be completely avoided and all researchers have their own perspectives, I find it very off-putting when there is an obvious voice of favoritism for one side or another in an academic research paper. I believe that researchers need to remain as impartial and objective as possible when writing academic articles. One way that biases come out is when the authors cite only resources that support their views and opinions and do not present background information or prior knowledge in it’s entirety in order to sway the readers towards their way of thinking.

Thank you for your insightful post and question!

Ruth

References

Parsons, O. (2018, January 28). Learning Activity 4.5 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://create.twu.ca/oplearning/2018/01/28/learning-activity-4-5/

As a consumer of research reports, the most important things for me in the introduction section of a high-quality research report are a clearly stated purpose and a concise summary of background information and prior knowledge on the topic. In general, I only read research reports when I am working on my own research paper or project. As such, I am reading through numerous reports in order gain information and knowledge on my topic of interest. Since I am reading a large number of articles, I need to be able to quickly read the introduction of a report and screen whether it is what I need for my research.

Aside from the abstract, the introduction is what I read quickly to determine if the article is useful for my research. The purpose of the article must be stated clearly so that I can immediately decide whether I will continue to read the article because it aligns with my research, or whether it investigates another area of the topic that is not helpful for me.

Adequate background information and discussion of prior knowledge is also important in the introduction. First, it allows me to better understand the purpose and methods that the researchers will use in their study. Second, I am able to have a general idea of the validity of the article based on the sources that it cites for their information. If the article cites reliable sources, I have more faith in the validity of the article and the quality of the research.

Is it possible to have a good research paper without a good introduction? Does a bad introduction always mean a poorly written or researched paper? 

Original assignment post found here.