University Academics Psychological Contracts in Australia - Assignment Example

Research Article Review Introduction A peer-reviewed journal article in an area of business was found that uses both qualitative and quantitative (mixed model) studies. A checklist is then applied to evaluate the research article. The selected research article is: Title: University Academics’ Psychological Contracts in Australia: A Mixed Method Research Approach Authors: Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill, School of Marketing and Management, Charles Sturt University, NSW, Australia Journal: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp. 61-72 Year of Issue: 2008 Source: http://www.ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-i1/v6-i1-art7-abstract.htm Checklist 1.Describe the purpose of the article. The article “addresses the formation, content and effects of academics’ psychological contracts” within the context of the enormous change and uncertainty that has taken place in Australian universities over the past two decades. 2.What is the problem? Is it clearly stated? There have been changes “in the number, funding, and focus of Australian universities, and further changes are inevitable in an increasingly global higher education market”. This is clearly stated at the outset in the introduction to the article. 3.Does the problem have a theoretical rationale? The problem relates to job related attitudes and behaviour because “These contracts can motivate employees to fulfill commitments made to employers when they are confident that employers will reciprocate and fulfill what employees perceive to be their side of the contracts.” 4.How significant is the problem? The changes are significant because they “affect the context and conditions of academic work mainly because of the rise of managerialism, increased external and internal accountability, performance management practices, commercialization of higher education, and tighter funding.” This problem is also present in the UK. And, “the content and effects of psychological contracts are critically important for academic and universities.” They also have a considerable impact on workplace relations and employee performance. 5.Is there a review of the literature? If so, is it relevant? Describe briefly. A brief overview of psychological contracts is given by identifying its key features followed by a discussion of past empirical research conducted within academia. It is relevant because it was necessary to identify the range of contract elements due to “the complex nature of psychological contracts”. And, the literature review supports important discussions related to the topic, for example, on contract violations and why they occur, collegiality and professional accountability, the nature of mutuality and reciprocity in psychological contracts, the state of psychological contracts, their relevance and changes. All these issues are relevant not only to the academic environment but also business environments generally. 6.Are the constructs operationally defined? No constructs are introduced in the study. 7.What are the hypotheses? How clearly are they stated? Although statistical testing was involved (see item 12), the hypotheses used in them are not explicitly stated. 8.Is the procedure (or method) used to address and answer the problem described fully and completely to enable future researchers to replicate the study? Describe briefly. Each phase of the research is justified and described in detail individually in section 4 combined with the results. The first phase first identifies “the four key foci of academic responsibility that greatly influenced the formation and effects of their psychological contracts” before conducting the survey. In this way, the procedure is directly focused to addressing the problem. Future researchers can easily replicate the study because the four key foci are identified, and all the items included in the survey are listed. 9.Was a sample used? If so, how was it selected? Provide sample information. The first sample comprised of 3 focus groups whose participants were contacted by email and provided with an information sheet explaining the aims of the study and function of the focus group. Twenty six academics participated in total, and the authors mention the size of the group being “small enough to allow for an in-depth discussion of key items yet” diverse enough to allow for the development of ideas. However, there are NO details of how these 26 individuals were actually selected, whether randomly, purposively or accidentally. This is not so much an issue though because this phase was a prelude to the in-depth part of the study. In the survey, 117 academics made up the sample out of the double number that was requested to participate using the Dillman approach. 10.What are the limitations or delimitations of the study? Were these stated? It is stated that this was a pilot investigative study, and that “this is still research in progress”. The author also makes it clear that the survey conducted “was based on the respondents from a single organization and used self-reporting questionnaires to assess the variable which were framed in terms of promises and obligations.” And, since the focus was only on employees’ perspectives, it therefore did not examine “the exchange process involved in the psychological contract”, for which further research would be necessary. 11.Are there any probable sources of error that might influence the results of the study? If so, have they been controlled or acknowledged as limitations to the generalizability of the research? Apparently, no probable sources of error are mentioned, but the limitations to the generalizability of the research are discussed in item 10 above. 12.What statistical techniques are used to analyze the data? Are they appropriate? Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to analyse the survey data, which led to the discovery of eight factors “relating to the University’s obligations to its employees and three underlying factors… in relation to individual academic’s obligations to the University.” EFA was appropriate because it showed some significant findings from the Barlett’s test. “There were also some correlations in the correlation matrix.” 13.How clearly are the results presented? Describe the results. The outcome (responses) of the focus group is summarised and discussed at length for each question. The survey results themselves are not given but the exploratory factor analysis figures for each item is given in a table. There were 31 items in the first part and 13 items in the second. The factors that were identified are as follows: Four key foci of academic responsibility that greatly influenced the formation and effects of the psychological contracts: University Discipline Society Students Underlying constructs in respect of the University’s obligation to the academics: Fair treatment in promotion Staff development and support Good management and leadership Academic life Fairness and equity Appropriate remuneration Reward performance Good workplace relations Underlying constructs in respect of the academic’s obligation to the University: Meet academic expectations Commitment Above and beyond 14.What are the findings? Are they presented clearly? Do the data support the conclusions? Does the researcher over-generalize the findings? Explain. The research showed that apart from the regular items in the contracts, the academics also felt very strongly “that they have a professional responsibility and spoke to a significant social role which effectively extends beyond the boundaries of the psychological contracts.” The data supports the conclusions because in the first factor analysis (University’s obligations to the academics), the Barlett’s test statistics is significant, and the eight factors identified are fairly typical. In the second factor analysis (Academics’ obligations to the university), the eigenvalues support the existence of the 3 underlying factors identified. The research does not overgeneralise the findings, rather admits the limitations of the study (see item 10). Conclusion This research study demonstrated an effective use of the mixed model, and the complementary nature of qualitative and quantitative research. The initial qualitative phase “provided in-depth and rich information about academics’ views and understanding of the psychological contracts”. This helped to guide the second quantitative survey phase. Reference Krivokapic-Skoko, B. and O’Neill, G. (2008). University Academics’ Psychological Contracts in Australia: a Mixed Method Research Approach. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 6 Issue 1 2008, pp. 61 - 72, Available online at www.ejbrm.com. Read More