Tag: Learning Activity 6.3

E. Russell, Maxfield, and J. Russell’s (2017) study is evaluated based on Plano-Clark & Creswell’s (2015) seven criteria for evaluating the data analysis of a qualitative research report (p.  301) below:

1. The analysis process used rigorous qualitative procedures (2/3) – Russell et al. (2017) sorted and analyzed the data using a hand coding process (p. 86) that involved “a lot of time reading and rereading the data” (p. 86), but failed to provide “verbatim transcripts and electronic scans of all gathered data” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 377).
2. Strategies were used to validate the findings (2/3) – Russell et al. (2017) used triangulation to validate their results, and “had another researcher preform an analysis for comparison” (p. 86). Despite this, there is not a clear indication of the researchers using at least three of the four strategies Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) identified as crucial to validating results: bracketing, triangulation, member checking, and audits.
3. The findings include a description of people, places, or events in the study (1/3) – The study provides details on each participants’ organizational position and for-profit sector as shown in Table 2 (Russell et al., 2017, p. 85), and general information on the age range, sex, and location of the study. Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) state, “A good qualitative description […] should transport you into the context of the research and help you get to know the people, setting, or events that are important in the study” (p. 366). Due to the researcher’s emphasis on anonymity, there are broad but not many narrow descriptions. While I feel the study still provides a general idea of its participants, further details on the people and setting of the organizations would have benefited the study.
4. The findings include appropriate themes about the central phenomenon (2/3) – There are seven meaningful themes identified in the two attributes found in the results that are supported by multiple quotes and perspectives. A comparison table and further interpretation from the researchers’ voice would have benefited this area.
5. The findings relate multiple themes to each other (3/3) – The themes are linked through the two attributes identified: 1) validation as a leader, and 2) freedom from management. There are multiple layers of categories within the two attributes that connect consistently to the central question of how “senior leaders interpret the personal benefits derived from serving the needs of followers” (Russell et al., 2017, p. 76).
6. The data analysis represents a good qualitative process (2/3) – The data analysis involved a dynamic coding process that involved open codes, axial codes, and selective codes that were interpreted based on the data collected. The researchers reveal a credible process with relatively accurate results despite a low sample number and limitations created by the questionnaire such as “discovering how these leaders arrived at their position of leadership” (Russell et al., 2017, p. 93).
7. The findings provide a good exploration of the central phenomenon (2/3) – The findings provide detailed information in understanding “the benefits to one’s self-interest from being a servant leader” (Russell et al., 2017, p. 93). Overall, the findings were well focused on the study’s research question and added to the discussion of servant leadership.

References

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