Category: Unit 9

The most important thing for me about the conclusions section of a high-quality research report is . . .

1. Clear summary of its data and results. The summary should guide readers to a result the researchers concluded, and this is only achievable through a focused and clear summary of the study’s key findings and results in relation to the study’s research question. I do not want to guess what the data and results mean, but instead told what key points I should note to understand the researchers’ interest and the study’s purpose.
2. Significant implications that are logically grounded in its results. This is the “So What?” of the study. I want to know why this study is an important addition to the world, and how the researchers came up with these resulting implications. Providing practical suggestions to readers is what makes research interesting to me; I want to know how I can apply what I learnt from the study into my work.
3. Acknowledgement of the study’s relation to prior research is important to me because I believe research should be a constant conversation between researchers across time and places. Not only does referencing precedent literature provide credibility, but it shows readers how the study adds to the conversation by either supporting or contradicting prior literature to show growth in the research of a certain topic. Comparing and contrasting a study’s result to previous work is a powerful way to show its significance in the academic world.

My question: I personally find it helpful to have a sample of survey or interview questions in the appendices of a study as it helps me understand how data was specifically collected from participants, but not all studies provide these samples. Do you think it is important for researchers to provide a sample of their questions or is this unnecessary information?

Melchar and Bosco’s (2014) study is evaluated based on Plano-Clark and Creswell’s (2015) criteria for evaluating the conclusions and back matter in a research report below. Each criteria is rated on a three-point scale.

1. The major results are identified and summarized (3/3) – The key results that confirmed the two hypotheses – mid-level managers exhibit servant leadership “consistent with those of high-level leaders” (Melchar & Bosco, p. 83, 2014) and there is a lack of differences between subjects based on education, age, and employment time – were clearly highlighted and focused. The summary of the data was logical and solely addressed the hypotheses without introducing new ideas.
2. The results are thoughtfully examined in relation to the literature and personal reflections (1/3) – The discussion includes personal reflections well focused on the results and the implications of the quantitative data gathered. While there are suggestions of the study’s relation to prior literature about servant literature, Melchar and Bosco (2014) fail to explicitly relate prior research to their study. While this may be a fault of a lack of precedent literature, the complete lack of reference back to previous studies is unjustified.
3. Appropriate implications of the results for practice are identified and justified (1/3) – Melchar and Bosco’s (2014) discussion discusses how “the highest means were in the areas of wisdom, organizational stewardship, and altruistic calling” (p. 84) and therefore suggests servant leaders to practice these three traits, but does not explicitly specify audiences that would benefit from this knowledge or explicitly provide suggestions based on its results.
4. Thoughtful critiques of the study’s limitations are provided and appropriate for the research approach (3/3) – Melchar and Bosco (2014) provide adequate examples of their study’s limitations. Melchar and Bosco (2014) acknowledge their “results may not be generalizable to other types of for-profit environments” (p. 85) as they only examined one industry, and their sample size was also “somewhat small” (p. 85).
5. Suitable implications of the results for future research are identified and justified (2/3) – The researchers suggest further research could be conducted to examine “the main components of servant leadership, particularly trust, valuing of others and ethical conduct” (Melchar & Bosco, 2014, p. 85) which could “further expand important knowledge relation to employee empowerment and productivity” (p. 85) in other environments. While this suggestion builds on the limitations of this current study, there is a lack of relation between the study’s topic and the suggested further study.
6. The interpretations are consistent with the study (2/3) – While the conclusions are drawn from the data logically and focuses on the two key hypotheses, further explanation of the findings and concluding themes would have been helpful.
7. The back matter is appropriate for the study report (1/3) – The reference list provided is appropriate, but there is a lack of author notes and appendices. Providing examples of the questions asked in both the interviews and surveys would have benefited the readers’ understanding of the study.

References

Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving High Organization Performance through Servant Leadership. Journal Of Business Inquiry: Research, Education & Application, 9(1), 74-88.

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

This is a review of Rob’s Action Research Project.

Does the project focus on a real problem in practice?

• Yes, the issue Rob’s project addresses is the lack of physical activities in the afternoon for students which results in short attention span and disengaged students.

Does the researcher plan to study his or her own practices or plan to collaborate with community members?

• The researcher plans to use a mixed methods design in the context of his own practice where his students are interviewed and asked to complete a survey, and data is collected from other teachers.

Does the project include careful reflection about the problem?

• Yes, Rob carefully reflects upon the issue and the effects it has on his students’ learning.

Does the researcher plan to gather several sources of information (e.g., qualitative and quantitative procedures)?

• Rob’s mixed methods design involves qualitative data where students are interviewed about their opinions of the right type and amount of daily physical activity is provided, and quantitative data that collects schedules from other teachers to evaluate the amount of physical activity and breaks and types of activities they set for their students. Rob also plans to distribute a survey to students that questions the types of activities students partake in during their recess and lunch breaks.

Does the researcher develop a clear plan for addressing the problem?

• While there are great ideas on how to address the issue, I believe the reasoning of using both a survey and interviews is unclear. Choosing either the interview or survey as the process of collecting data from students is adequate. The data collection process proposed is too complicated.

Does the project include reflecting, thinking, looking, and gathering information and acting?

• The overall project includes reflecting and thinking about the issue, and gathering data. Rob also proposes possible a possible action plan that involves additional scheduled activity breaks in the afternoon.

Will the results of the project enhance the lives of those involved?

• The project is capable of enhancing students’ and teachers’ lives. Education is crucial on an individual and social levels, and providing the right environment where students are engaged and thriving enhance people individually and society as a whole.