Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper
Course title is Quantitative Methods
please read carefully and write it perfectly.
Thanks in advance.
It is very important to me.
You are asked to interpret and evaluate the following journal paper attached with this assignment:
Eisenbeib, S.A., and Boerner, S, (2013), A Double-Edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and Individual Creativity, Vol. 24, pp. 54-68.
Areas for discussion within the essay are:
1. Introduction: Key research gaps that the paper is trying to fill
2. Brief description of current theory and empirical research illustrating incoherencies, inconsistencies and uncertainties
3. The nature of sample used in the study and an appraisal of its fit for the research question as well as its shortcomings
4. The major part of your paper (at least 1000 words) is to describe the most significant statistics in the paper and what they mean
5. Conclusions: Discuss how the researchers could have done the study differently. Here I’m looking for your creative thinking especially linked to seminar
discussions of other papers during this course.
I would like you to appraise the journal article in your own words rather than copying material straight from the paper.
This will show me that you have thought about
the paper deeply and developed your own understanding. This exercise is aimed at helping you deconstruct quantitative journal articles and develop a reflexive critique
towards future articles you may read on your undergraduate programme.
I suggest you re-read the paper a few times and go over all your notes and lecture slides from last year before you attempt this assignment. Try to think clearly about
what the paper is trying to say and what the statistics mean. This assignment is not about replicating the paper but providing a critique of it. This means that you
need to stand back away from the paper and think through its assumptions, incoherencies and inconsistencies. Good luck with the paper!