Critical Analysis Of Two Scholarly Articles

The purpose of this project is to present a comprehensive and critical analysis of two scholarly articles. The components that will be covered in this assessment and hold equal importance include; an identification of the research methods employed in the articles, an in-depth discussion of the strengths and limitations of these research methods and an analysis of the findings and research methods that the Board members of a company will find most substantial and practical. 

Part One

In the scholarly work of Chuang et al (2015), the research methods section starts at page 483 and includes sub-sections on the sample, data collection and protocol followed for the interview and data analysis. Chuang et al (2015) collected data from a sample size of 30 informants from China who belonged to a varied range of industries and sectors. The data was gathered by four interviewers who conducted semi-structured interviews with the informants for an estimated time of about one hour each. 

The data analysis focused on identifying theoretical classifications which comprised of two stages. In the first stage, the researchers uncovered key PE themes in accordance with an episode. While in the second stage they classified first and second order codes. 

The research methods section of Afshari et al (2020) begins on page 777 where they describe their research design as being mixed-method. Their data analysis was of two types – this included quantitative analysis and qualitative data analysis. The sample consisted of 470 employees in an Australian firm and the survey tool was that of a questionnaire – 56.7% of the employees responded to the questionnaire. Additionally, the sample size also consisted of 21 informants who were interviewed for the study. 

The similarities of the research methods used by Chuang et al (2015) and Afshari et al (2020) are that they both used the same unit of analysis known as ‘episodes’ and uncovered distinct themes during their data analysis to present study findings. The differences are that Chuang et al (2015) employed the tool of interviews to gather information whereas Afshari et al (2020) used a questionnaire or a survey tool in addition to interviews. Moreover, Afshari et al adopted a mixed-method research design which included both qualitative and quantitative analysis whereas, Chuang et al (2015) focused on performing a qualitative analysis only. Moreover, the research of Chuang et al (2015) has a smaller sample size with the study location being Taiwan compared whereas the study performed by Afshari et al (2020) had a larger sample size and the study site was Australia. 

Part Two

The data gathering conducted by Chuang et al (2015) is more rigorous and remarkable because the researchers used two distinct sampling strategies which are that of theoretical sampling and purposive sampling. Moreover, the researchers gathered information from a wide array of informants representing a wide range of industries including banking, transportation, retail and journalism among others.