In this report, you’re going to present your findings regarding your analysis of the article (Article 1 as in the attachment). You have three goals: (1) provide a framework for an accurate understanding of the article on which the future CEO wants to base a major organizational culture decision; (2) diplomatically present findings that the firm’s leadership may not like; and (3) convince the leadership of the merits of evidence-based management in general. Your achievement of these three goals is critical to the longevity of Brookshore Industries and your status on the board of directors.
This should include all of the following:
an explanation of why an evidence-based approach should be used in this situation, and what such an approach might look likeyour analysis of the article that inspired the future CEO, including comparative analysis with the “better” article that you found, working with an evidence-based frameworkyour recommendation for the way ahead
Is there any error in the incoming CEO’s article (Article 1) that might call into question the believability of the authors’ findings?
overview of critiquing quantitative researchresearch method and designthe general validity of researchinternal validity
Other errors, may include:
graphical displays of datasampling and external validitymeasurement and scalingcanons of causality
Develop a checklist (see below) of the do and don’t (this list is very important, see Attachment 2)
Are the reported findings backed by sufficient evidence? Is that evidence of sufficient quality to suppor t the findings?Include page numbers, quotes, and any additional evidence from the article contents to build a convincing case.Put together your strongest two arguments (commendations or criticisms of the article). Be certain your arguments are fully developed, including a strong opinionated claim, an explanation of your claim, some evidence to support your claim, and an authoritative source to back the legitimacy of your claim.
Details of the Tasks:
1) you choose four articles (any articles related to this goal as highlighted in Blue as above) of that represent “better” research than the incoming CEO’s article (Article 1, as in attachment).
2) employing the checklist (as in Attachment 2) of comparing the said 4 articles in the means of the article contents (the author’s methods) do, or don’t
– There are at least two approaches to making such a choice (to adopt the approach you feel best fits this situation).
How does each article “score” when held against the standards you’ve compiled from your reading? Which one contains the most “dos?” Which contains the fewest “don’ts?” This would be a simple way of determining which article is best.
Are some criteria more important than others when it comes to determining the believability and utility of research? That is, are some weaknesses more damaging than others? Are some strengths able to overcome a number of weaknesses? This kind of thinking implies a weighted approach to choosing the best article. If this will be your approach, you must first determine which dos and don’ts deserve the most weight. Then compare the four articles on these particular dos and don’ts. Which article comes out on top?
Regardless of which approach you’ve chosen, you must be able to thoroughly explain and justify your choice of the “best” article to present as a strong comparison to the board of directors. Remember that your goal is to help practitioners, many of whom are not trained in research methods, to understand potential weaknesses and strengths in the incoming CEO’s article (article 1).
3) From your four articles/studies, you choose the single article that you feel best represents methodological improvements over the original article (article 1) that best represents to the board the importance of methodology and the difference in validity, reliability, and quality from one set of findings to another. (Note: You are determined to demonstrate how the recommendations in the original article could have been given more weight if they were backed with better quality evidence obtained from more rigorous research methods). You have to state clearly about how and in what specific ways this article avoids the errors present in the original (article 1).
4) With plenty of background on research philosophy, design, sampling, procedures, and measurement, you have to explain to the board why it’s unwise to develop an organizational plan based on the findings of a single research article (article 1).
the “report” (assume it is a formal APA essay) careful note including page numbers, quotes (and other evidence from the body of the article) that you deem necessary to building a convincing case about whether Brookshore’s board of directors should put its faith in the findings of the incoming CEO’s article (article 1).with the goal of demonstrating how research methods affect the value of research findings, using a comparison between the CEO’s article (Article 1) and your “better” article on the same topic. Ultimately, you hope to help Brookshore Industries reach a well-informed, rather than hasty, decision about organizational culture and leadership goals.
Craft communication to the audience in order to maximize understanding and elicit support.
-Demonstrate scholar-practitioner level oral communication to make an argument or explain a situation.
– Evaluate the philosophical perspective of a research article.
– Evaluate the research design of a research article.
– Evaluate the data analysis presented in scholarly research.
– Build a convincing scholarly argument, using established criteria, promoting the superiority of one piece of evidence (e.g., a scholarly journal article) over another.
The post Task: A report to the Brookshore Board of Directors
Assignment status: Solved by our experts