Month: January 2018

As a consumer of research reports, the most important things for me in the introduction section of a high-quality research report are:

• A clear purpose statement is crucial to a study. As I was taught in my English classes, the thesis of my essays is central to my writing as a whole. Similarly, a clear purpose statement is the central to the study; whatever is written or done for this study must circulate and relate to this central purpose statement. Without clarity in the purpose statement, the article and study would be futile.
• Simple language that adheres to its audience. I greatly appreciate researchers that consider: What background information does the reader who may not understand a particular industry’s jargon need to know before reading my research, and what common language can I use to replace the jargon? Research can look like a different language without prior experience or understanding, and I am easily disengaged when I need to search up numerous definitions within a paragraph. Understandable and simple language is engaging.
• Credible literature that clearly supports the purpose and discussion of the article appropriately. Literature used should not distract readers from the purpose statement, and should instead help define and clarify terms or theories proposed by the study. The integration of the literature is also important for the study; I like clear explanations of how the literature adds to the discussion and summaries of the literature if beneficial to the understanding of the study as a whole.

Question:

What detracts you from reading a certain study? Do you have an example of a time where you could not will yourself to read past the introduction?

Parris and Peachey’s (2013) study is a qualitative research report as it focuses on “a single phenomenon that is central to their inquiry” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 178): The definitions and empirical investigations precedent studies created of servant leadership. Here is an evaluation of Parris & Peachey’s (2013) research purpose based on Plano-Clark & Creswell’s (2015) seven point criteria:

1. The study’s purpose is clearly specified (3/3) – Parris & Peachey (2013) clearly state “the purpose of this study was to systematically examine and organize the current body of research literature that either quantitatively or qualitatively explored servant leadership theory” (p. 378). There is clear phrasing and purpose for their study.
2. The focus of the study is appropriate (3/3) – The purpose statement above reveals “a single central phenomenon” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 185) that impacts the general discussion of servant leadership as a “tenable theory” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378) despite the limited empirical research currently available.
3. The overall intent of the study is appropriate (2/3) – The intent of the research is to examine and organize the current literature, but does not explore the phenomenon of how researchers can better conduct empirical studies or indicate what is to be learnt specifically about the lack of studies available.
4. The participants and sites are appropriate (3/3) – While there are no “human participants” in this study, the research is conducted on appropriate participants – the literature. The study details specific inclusion and exclusion criteria requirements that seek appropriate literature for the study; the literature must be in English, be an empirical study, focus and discuss servant leadership, and examine servant leadership theory qualitatively or quantitatively (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 381).
5. The purpose is narrowed through appropriate research questions and/or hypotheses (3/3) – The purpose of the study is a product of the question: “If [servant leadership] is a way [of] life – a philosophy, how can it be empirically tested” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378), and uses this initial question to develop its research questions that consider how servant leadership is defined, what contexts servant leadership is empirically investigated, how servant leadership is examined, and what were the results of the examination (p. 378). Parris & Peachey (2013) also indicate an openness to learning from the literature they consider in their study.
6. The purpose follows logically from the statement of the problem and literature review (2/3) – Parris & Peachey (2013) provide a good framework of their reasoning for conducting the study and use of chosen literature. Their research is evidently built on existing knowledge and addresses a gap in knowledge, but does not aim to close this gap. The study seeks to organize and analyze current literature, but the results emphasize the gap in empirical research about servant leadership instead of closing the gap.
7. The purpose is consistent with the study’s overall approach (3/3) – The purpose is consistent in its broad, conceptual framework, and allows findings to emerge with neutral language. The researchers’ also include their “perceptions and experiences” (Plano-Clark & Creswells, 2015, p. 185). In Parris & Peachey’s (2013) of their findings in reference to their research questions. Parris & Peachey (2013) discuss how “servant leadership is a tenable theory” (p. 386) affected by cross-cultural factors, and explore lack of consensus in defining servant leadership through their personal experience with their findings.

   References

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

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

Below is an evaluation of Parris and Peachey’s (2013) study using Plano-Clark and Creswell’s seven quality literature review criteria with a rating scale of 0-3.

1. The review includes the relevant literature (3/3) – Parris & Peachey (2013) includes an extensive reference list that supports their study. The review itself seeks relevant literature to include in its compilation of literature pertaining to research on servant leadership, and I believe the text seeks clear and applicable literature to clarify terms and add to its study.
2. The review examines sources that are recent and of high quality (3/3) – The majority of literature used is recent – within the recent 10 years of the article – but utilizes older literature as well due to the nature of the study that analyzes all possible research in English completed on servant leadership; I believe this is an appropriate use of older texts. As the study only accepted studies “published in a peer-reviewed journal” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 381), the literature used are from credible sources.
3. The literature review is appropriately documented (3/3) – The literature used is well cited and appropriately integrated into Parris & Peachey’s (2013) article. The text provides complete and well-documented citations throughout the article consistently.
4. The literature is thoughtfully synthesized (2/3) – The article provides clear subtopics that organizes the literature into different groupings to support the flow and discussion. Due to the vast amount of literature analyzed by Parris & Peachey (2012), not all literature is clearly discussed.
5. The literature is critically examined (2/3) – In subtopics such as “Origin of Servant Leadership” (p. 379), the literature is discussed more in depth; Greenleaf’s (1977) definition of servant leadership is crucial to the article, so an appropriate introductory critique is included. Within the study itself, there is less emphasis on the literature itself, but on the findings. While the literature provided supports the discussion of the findings, the authors do not discuss the studies as much in depth.
6. The study has a strong foundation in the literature (3/3) – Because the study’s problem addresses precedent literature on servant leadership, the study puts great emphasis on the importance of organizing, critiquing, and building knowledge based on these past discussions of servant leadership. The study clearly states the importance of empirical and peer-reviewed literature in its research and for future research on this topic.
7. The use of the literature fits the study’s overall research approach (3/3) – Parris & Peachey (2012) rely on previous literature to support their methods. For example, they use a qualitative “appraisal tool designed by Letts et al. (2007)” (p. 381) and quantitative “appraisal tool designed by the Institute of Public Health Sciences” (p. 381) which were chosen “to create a three-point scale to reflect the quality of studies” (p. 143). As exemplified, the literature chosen fits the needs of the study and provides a framework to identify the quality of of the texts it includes in its analysis of empirical studies on servant leadership.

References

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

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

Using Plano-Clark and Creswell’s (2015) evaluation criteria of a research problem, I will evaluate Parris and Peachey’s (2013) question: How was servant leadership (SL) defined, empirically investigated, and examined in precedent literature (p. 378)? The evaluation criteria consists of seven components which are rated on a scale of 0-3 from poor-excellent as indicated below:

1. The topic is interesting (2/3) – While the question is intriguing, the study’s research goal does not seek to answer the specific question of how to empirically investigate SL, but instead compiles and organizes previous ideas from previous literature. I am more interested in the specific answers to the question than a discussion on how others studied SL in the past.
2. There is a meaningful problem (3/3)- The problem proposed by Parris & Peachey (2013) is “Greenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership as a way of life rather than as a management technique perhaps has slowed the acceptance of this leadership theory in academia” (p. 378). Servant leadership is a viable leadership theory capable of resolving leadership issues in the twenty-first century (p. 378), but due to the current presentation of SL as a philosophy, it is not taken as a leadership technique; this is a meaningful issue.
3. The importance of the problem is justified (3/3)- Precedent literature recognize the “positive effects of servant leadership on organizational profits and employee satisfaction” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378), but without a testable and observable evaluation process, SL “would be difficult to operationalize and apply” (p. 378). The importance of recognizing SL as a practical leadership technique is justified.
4. There are deficiencies in the knowledge about the problem (3/3) – The article states “there does not exist a comprehensive summary of empirical studies exploring servant leadership theory in organizational settings […], which is a gap in the extant literature” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378) and that “only a limited amount of research has empirically examined [SL]” (p. 378). This indicates the lack of empirical knowledge compiled in this area.
5. There are audiences who can benefit from the missing knowledge (2/3)- Parris & Peachey (2013) identify beneficiaries of this study as “scholars and practitioners who are responding to the growing perceptions that corporate leader have become selfish and who are seeking a viable leadership theory to help resolve the challenges of the twenty-first century” (p. 378). My issue  is the study may not have a significant compilation of studies to fill this missing knowledge by compiling information alone.
6. The passage clearly argues that the study is warranted (3/3) – Parris & Peachey (2013) argue its method – systematic literature review – “adopts a replicable, scientific, and transparent process that aims to mitigate bias” (p. 378) crucial to the management of research.
7. The passage is well written (3/3) – In sum, the article guides readers easily through the issues and study of SL, and presents the information engagingly.

   References

   Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

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

Please find my activity 3.4 assignment by clicking here: LDRS 591, Unit 3, Activity 3.4

What a wide range of information sources we have accessible! Having completed years of school prior to this program, I must admit, I never wandered far from the class textbooks and articles I found on JSTOR and Google Scholar labeled as a “scholarly article.” Also, an interesting point I noticed through the learning activities we completed this week was the emphasis on currency. When I studied English literature, I found there was less of an urgency in finding current articles that date no later than 10 years. We read articles from writers throughout time, and were encouraged to engage with these writers’ ideas proposed years, possibly hundreds of years, ago. This week has surely changed my perspective in gauging what a reliable and credible source is, and opened my eyes to the bewildering amount and styles of texts available to everyone at anytime.

While I will continue to use databases such as JSTOR and Google Scholar, I plan to add EBSCO to my resource list. I foresee many hours of reading and searching as I continue to learn how to use the databases effectively with my newly learnt knowledge of how to search using AND, OR, and NOT, limiters, and my search history (I could have saved hours of my time by utilizing these to my advantage in my past schooling). While I plan to use articles as I have in the past, I am excited to explore the world of EBooks and research.

Another interesting source I previously dismissed from my resource list is Google. After learning the need to find reliable sources in school, I was taught to use databases and books instead. After watching the Assessing Online Resources tutorial, I realized there are definitely appropriate occasions to use search engines such as Google. As I plan to look into Canada’s homelessness and addictions situation, there are credible government resources published publicly online. I plan to utilize these resources well.

Fully aware and weary of sources I find online, and also on databases, I know I must evaluate the source as scholarly without relying on the sole assumption it is appropriate by the “scholarly article” tag the text may have. I will use the six-considerations I learnt to evaluate each text, and measure the text’s credibility by its: 1) authority, 2) currency, 3) purpose, 4) content, 5) publication type, and 6) bias and special interests. Examining the writers’ credibility, references, purpose, content, and biases will help me select reliable sources to enhance my writing.

Blog Question Found Here: https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-2-notes/

The E-Book I chose is Strategies for Improving Homeless People’s Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services by Martha Burt, Jenneth Carpenter, Samuel Hall, Kathryn Henderson, Debra Rog, John Hornik, Ann Denton, and Garrett Moran. The E-book link is here: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS124562

1. Authority: The authors of this study come from different research entities:
   1. The Urban Institute is a U.S. think-tank comprising of “social scientists, economists, communicators, mathematicians, demographers, and data scientists” (Who We Are, 2017). Established in 1968, its founding president was a former Assistant Secretary for Wealth, Education, and Welfare – it claims to advance “the well-being of people” in the U.S. through research. Martha Burt and Samuel Hall are the Principal Research Associate, with appearances on C-SPAN dating back to 1988, and an accomplished lawyer – respectively
   2. The Advocates for Human Potential’s aim is to influence “change in health and business systems to support vulnerable populations” (Advocates for Human Potential, n.d.). Their history spans 30 years – 10 of which Jenneth Carpenter was involved, holding PhD and Masters degrees in Social Work. John Hornik holds a PhD in Engineering as Director of Research and Ann Denton holds a Masters in Education as a Director within this organization also.
   3. Westat was founded in 1963 by three statisticians and is behind many U.S. federal government statistics (About Us, n.d.).  Kathryn Henderson is Senior Study Director and both Debra Rog and Garrett Moran serve as Vice Presidents – every author holds a PhD.
2. Currency: This book was prepared in March 2010 for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
3. Purpose: Although not blatently stated, one can infer its intended use is to aid national and macro-level policymakers in addressing the difficulty of accessing resources in vulnerable populations. A secondary audience includes the micro-level participants, such as municipalities, communities, hospitals, and non-profits; the research noted in this book provides seven examples of cities and their respective organizational structures that could be integrated and adapted by other communities.
4. Publication type/process: Because this book was written for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, they are naturally also the publishers. The benefit of having three different research entities collaborate is that peer-review is, excluding biases, inherent prior to publishing. According to Google Scholar, it has been cited by sixteen other research bodies related to homelessness and social services.
5. Biases: The authors do not reveal obvious biases in the research; the institutions they represent predominantly claim to be non-partisan. However, due to the nature of research funding, I speculate the examples chosen in the book may lean towards larger “success stories.” In order for these think-tanks to win future contracts, especially with a source of funding as big as the U.S. government, there is likely pressure to find data that can grab headlines and is immediately actionable – lest the government bring their funding to someone else who can help garner more attention.

References:

Who We Are. (2017, November 01). Retrieved January 11, 2018, from https://www.urban.org/aboutus/who-we-are

I chose Donata Christiane Nilsen’s (2012) article, “Building & Enhancing Interorganizational Relationship for Disaster Preparedness and Response Capacity: a Study of Community-based Organizations Serving Vulnerable Populations; a Focus on the Homeless.” The article can be found here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5tp4f30n

The following is my assessment of Nilsen’s (2012) article:

1. Authority – At the time of its writing, the author, Donata Christiane Nilsen, was a Doctor of Public Health candidate in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley. This study was completed as a dissertation in requirements for her degree and was overseen by a committee of professors from the university. Although her university provides Nilsen a level of authority, a quick Google search reveals little of her credentials, past writing experience, and expertise.
2. Currency – The article was published in 2012, which meets the rule of utilizing current sources that date back no longer than 10 years.
3. Purpose – As stated, the article was written for the completion of Nilsen’s Doctor of Public Health degree. The dissertation’s audience was Nilson’s educators in the university, but Nilsen (2012) also states the purpose of her study was to explore “the relationship between the number and types of interorganizational relationships that [community-based organizations (“CBOs”)] use to serve clients” (p.1). This suggests its intention for a public audience amongst the non-profit sector, and reinforces the research she conducted through surveys and interviews for findings. The tone and language of the article suggests the author’s impartiality as it speaks of its findings and research methods rather than anecdotal stories.
4. Content: This research article communicates a research question, research method, results, and answers the research question. It is backed by 6.5 pages of references, and appendixes that exemplify the research questions and resources used. This suggests a well-structured and research-based study.
5. Publication Type/Process: Though Berkeley University is a reputable university, the article was published by a university press and not a large publisher. Despite that, the source is peer-reviewed.
6. Bias and Special Interests: There are no obvious biases, but as Nilsen is seeking a Doctoral in Public Health, there may be biases towards the selection of organizations selected to participate in the study and the concluding benefits of interorganizationial relationships with CBOs.

References

Nilsen, D. C. (2012). Building & Enhancing Interorganizational Relationships for Disaster Preparedness and Response Capacity: a Study of Community-based Organizations Serving Vulnerable Populations: a Focus on the Homeless.