Title: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Method used in Sand-Jecklin and Sherman (2014)
In this assignment, we will analyze and evaluate the research method employed in the study conducted by Sand-Jecklin and Sherman (2014). This research article focuses on examining the impact of an educational intervention program on nursing faculty professional development. By identifying and discussing both the strengths and weaknesses of the research method used, we can gain a better understanding of the study’s limitations and contributions to the existing body of knowledge.
1. Rigorous Sampling Technique:
The study employed a purposive sampling technique, which involved selecting participants who met specific criteria. This approach ensured a targeted and focused sample of nursing faculty members who were currently engaged in teaching at the graduate level. By carefully selecting participants, the researchers were able to collect highly relevant data and obtain a deep understanding of the phenomenon being studied.
2. Multiple Data Collection Methods:
The researchers utilized multiple data collection methods, including surveys, interviews, and observations. This mixed-method approach allowed for the triangulation of data, increasing the credibility and reliability of the findings. By using surveys, quantitative data could be obtained, offering measurable insights into participants’ perceptions. Simultaneously, interviews and observations provided rich qualitative data, allowing for a more in-depth exploration of the participants’ experiences and perspectives.
3. Comprehensive and Valid Measurement Tools:
To assess the impact of the educational intervention program, the researchers designed and implemented multiple measurement tools. The questionnaires used in the study were carefully developed, ensuring face and content validity, and the reliability of the instruments was assessed through pilot testing and internal consistency analysis. By employing these rigorous measurement tools, the researchers were able to gather accurate and precise data to address the research questions.
4. Analytical Techniques:
The researchers employed sound analytical techniques to analyze the collected data. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, allowing for a clear summary and interpretation of the survey results. Additionally, the qualitative data were thematically analyzed, providing deeper insights into the participants’ experiences and perceptions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses enhanced the robustness of the overall findings, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the research topic.
1. Limited Generalizability:
One limitation of the study is the limited generalizability of the findings. As the sample consisted of nursing faculty members teaching at the graduate level in a specific geographic area, the results may not be representative of all nursing faculty or different educational settings. The study’s findings and conclusions should be cautiously applied to other contexts or populations, as they may differ due to variations in demographics, educational practices, and cultural factors.
2. Potential Bias:
The researchers acknowledged that both convenience sampling and self-selection processes were employed to recruit participants. This may introduce bias, as those who volunteered or agreed to participate may have had a particular interest or personal investment in the topic. Consequently, the findings may not reflect the broader population of nursing faculty and may limit the study’s external validity.
3. Reliance on Self-Report:
Some aspects of the study relied heavily on self-report measures, such as the surveys and interviews. Participants’ responses may have been subject to recall bias or social desirability bias, leading to potential inaccuracies or skewed results. Although efforts were made to ensure anonymity and confidentiality, it is challenging to eliminate such biases entirely in self-report measures.
4. Lack of Control Group:
The absence of a control group is another potential limitation of the study. Without a comparison group receiving no intervention or a different educational intervention, it becomes challenging to attribute the observed changes purely to the program under investigation. A control group would have strengthened the internal validity of the study by allowing for a more precise determination of the intervention’s impact.
The research method employed by Sand-Jecklin and Sherman (2014) demonstrated several strengths, including a rigorous sampling technique, multiple data collection methods, comprehensive measurement tools, and sound analytical techniques. However, the study also had limitations, such as limited generalizability, potential bias, reliance on self-report measures, and the absence of a control group. These strengths and weaknesses should be taken into account when interpreting the study’s findings and applying them to other contexts. Overall, this study contributes valuable insights to the field of nursing faculty professional development, but further research is needed to address its limitations and expand our understanding of this topic.