A Quantitative Review of Research on Charismatic Leadership

A Quantitative Review of Research on Charismatic Leadership

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your essay.

Write My Essay For Me

Framework for Article
1. Title: A minor issue, but it is helpful if the title is succinct but descriptive of the article
content. Gimmicky or catchy titles are all very well but do they enable you to tell what
the article is about? Of course a poor title does not necessarily indicate a poor paper and
certainly isn’t a key criterion in assessing the quality of a paper.
2. Author: Some idea of the author(s) academic background can be gained by looking at
their job title, qualifications, and where they work. Articles normally provide this basic
information and it may give you an indication of the ability of the writers to carry out
valid research. Ifyou know them to be acknowledged experts in the subject area covered
then there is good chance the research work will be of high standard (though it would be
dangerous to assume this without further critical review of the paper!)
3. Abstract: This should provide a handy summary of the content with indications of the
aims, methods, results and importance of the study. Muir Gray (2001, p.l07-8) suggests
reading abstracts is an excellent way to “identify junk” but he also makes the valid point
that abstracts are often written with a bias towards highlighting the positive aspects of the
research. If the findings are noted as positive then carefully check the methods used
(negative findings may perhaps give an indication of lack of bias but you still need to be
check). The abstract can, therefore, give an indication of how well the study was
conducted and whether it is worth reading.
4. Source: An assessment of where the article was published should give some clues as
to its potential value. The key issue is whether it is a peer reviewed journal. In other
words do articles submitted to the journal go through a rigorous review process before
they are accepted for publication. Some journals are undoubtedly less fastidious about
having articles assessed before publication.
5. Introduction: This section is where the research problem! clinical question should
be defined clearly. You should expect to fmd here clear descriptions of the research aims,
an outline of theoretical issues and the hypothesis .should be introduced. Information
should include the current state of knowledge about the research topic and an indication
of the gaps in knowledge which the current study will hope to fill. Overall you should get
an answer to the question “why was the research done?”
6. Review of Literature: Here you will find a survey of current knowledge
highlighted by a thorough review of the existing literature. The review should indicate
any theoretical implications of the research in relation to previous work. The review
should include up to date references and be based on as wide and thorough a search of
sources as possible. A key issue is whether researchers have been unbiased and have
presented any evidence which actually contradicts their own ideas.
Framework 2016 2
7. Method: This section should provide a clear and concise account of methods used.
Such detail should be sufficient to allow the research to be replicated by other
researchers. The study design and data collection methods should be clearly outlined.
Overall you should be able to assess how the research was done. The methods sections
may be divided as follows:
a. Subjects: The participants, the test conditions and procedures for experimental
and control groups should be described in detail. This should enable you to assess
whether the sample selection method was valid. You would expect information on
the number of subjects and who took part. A small sample may be frne as long as it
is representative and numbers will generally be smaller for qualitative studies.
However, it may be that a large sample size is needed to provide a representative
group size and small numbers may have an impact on the power of statistical
analysis (Polgar & Thomas, 2000, p.278). The type of research will obviously
impact greatly on the information you should be looking for. For example, in the
case of a study using a randomized controlled trial, there should be information on
the method for randomizing the allocation of subjects to experimental and control
groups. Any ethical issues should be clearly stated and explained. You would
expect to learn that the study had been through ethical committee clearance and
that the confidentiality and anonymity of subjects has been assured.
b. Materials: Any special equipment or instruments (e.g. questionriaires,
standardized assessments) should be described. The validity and reliability of
apparatus or instruments needs to be indicated. In other words the adequacy and
appropriateness of the methods used for collecting data should be made clear.
c. Procedures: What happened in the experiment and the steps executed should be
described here. The treatments and settings should be outlined and a reputable
researcher should detail any flaws in the procedures or any other factors adversely
affecting the research work. In simple terms, what was done and how it was done
should he recorded here.
8. Results: The results section reports what has been discovered as a result of the
research undertaken. The normal format is for the results of the research to be reported
factually and formally without discussion and then for a prose summary to he given of
the statistics etc. A good researcher should mention all the relevant results, even those
that actually go against the hypothesis
a. Statistics: Other results including summary statistics may usefully be presented
in tables or figures which, if they are well constructed, should aid understanding of
the findings. Any statistical tests and measures used should be described allowing
the reader to evaluate whether the appropriate tests were applied.