Academic Administrators Making a Difference - Promoting Peace Education in Jordanian Higher Education - Article Example

Critical Appraisal of an Academic Article Student’s Name Grade Course Tutor’s Name Date: Introduction The process of appraising an academic article critically involves evaluation the written work, assessing “whether it possesses validity”, and gauging its applicability or usefulness (EBP Tutorial, 2005, p.1). Notably, critical appraisals are important to readers since they indicate whether or not the findings, or recommendations stated in the articles can be implemented in real life, and if so, what outcomes can be expected from such implementation (EBP Tutorial, 2005). In this critical essay, the article titled “Academic Administrators Making a Difference: promoting Peace Education in Jordanian Higher Education” will be appraised. In the sections hereunder, the critical appraisal essay will reveal that although the author has included all relevant sections that are usually indicated in a research essay, a qualitative research approach would have had better results when compared to the quantitative approach that was used. The title and its relevance to the article The article has a title, which corresponds well with its content. Summarily, the research article gauges the role that academic administrators play in enhancing peace education in Jordanian Higher Education, and this is captured in the title. Of curious note however is that the author(s) rarely mentions academic administrators in the introductory part of the article; rather he/she continuously uses the expression “we” ostensibly in the place of academic administrators. By using the first person approach in writing, the writer seems to personalize issues, and is therefore likely to create bias perceptions in the mind of a critical reader. The use of first-person writing style notwithstanding, the author(s) justify the research subject by describing Jordan’s regional position in the Middle East, and the need to foster peace education in schools as a way of instilling society-friendly skills in students. Agreeably, a reader gets the impression that peace education is important in conflict prone areas, hence meaning that the subject of the article is valid. The Abstract The abstract is defined as a summary of what a paper has investigated (EBP Tutorial, 2005; Russell, 2008). The subject article’s abstract is a comprehensive summary of the paper, and include the aims of the paper, the methodology, and the findings. Instead of summarizing the recommendations made in the article however, the writer just indicated that “a number of recommendations were suggested accordingly”. The cited statement by the author is arguably indicative of a shortcoming in the article, since a reader would then be forced to scan the article to the recommendations section, since no indication of what they are is offered in the abstract. Of worth noting is that there is no recommendations section in the essay. The omission of the recommendations section could however been deliberate on the author’s part since what would be considered as recommendations are included in the “conclusion and implications” section. The introduction The abstract is followed by the introduction which does well to provide an overview of the paper. The background included is significant to the study since it addresses why peace education is important. Additionally, it is well presented, it clear and concise, and is also convincing to a reader. Literature review section Although the writer does not have a dedicated section for literature review, the article cites multiple literature sources right from the introductory part through to the analysis section. Clearly, the writer depended on other authors’ previous work to determine the extent of peace education in Jordanian institutions. The writer’s inclusion of other people’s finding in the article is in line with observations made by Russell (2008), who observed that previous “research offers numerous tools for describing, defining, measuring, and evaluating” what one is doing (p.2). Despite the author’s use of past research, it is notable that some of the works cited date back to the early 1990s. A decade later, it is probable that research findings published in the 1990s are no longer valid. As such, it is arguable that the researcher could have used more recent research findings, especially because the topic under investigation is likely to have registered some significant changes over the years. The aim, significance of the study The article author(s) identifies two main aims for the study; the first aim seeks to identify the extent to which academic administrators in a specific Jordanian University contribute to the promotion of peace among students while the second aim seeks to identify the presence or lack thereof of significant differences in the academic administrators contribution to peace education based on several variables (i.e. gender; type of college; age; academic administration position; and the experience(in years) of different academic administrators). To a critical reader, it is rather obvious that the writer(s) did not define the term “contribution”. WorldNet (n.d.) defines the term contribution as the voluntary giving, or sharing. Applied in context, the term contribution would thus be interpreted to mean that the author(s) was gauging the extent to which the academic administrators were voluntary championing the peace education cause in the specified university. Whether this voluntary input by the academic administrators is a valid argument is however debatable; for the most part, academic administrators guide students based on the contents of academic modules. It therefore appears that the author(s) did not consider the implications of voluntary contributions towards peace education by academic administrators, and how that would affect their willingness or lack thereof to engage in the same. The significance of the study is clearly articulated, and as noted elsewhere in this critical essay, Jordan’s regional location within the conflict-ridden Middle East makes peace education essential. The methodology To the author(s)’ credit, the methods section is clearly and logically structured. The author(s) commence the section by indicating that the methodology would be quantitative “conducted using a descriptive method” and would use questionnaires to obtain feedback from respondents. They however do not define the key concepts used in the methodology. The sampling used fits well into the convenience category as described by Patton (2002), since the respondents were selected due to their willingness to participate in the study, their knowledge of the topic under investigation, and their ease of access. As such, ethical approval is seen to be granted. Notably, the study was conducted within a single college hence limiting the number or diversity of respondents who could be included in the study. The study is therefore similar to a case study, and as such has limits including the probability that findings from the case scenario may not be applicable in the larger societal context (Metcalfe, 2006; Parthasarathy, 2008; Krauss, 2005). Regardless of the aforementioned, the study managed to get 49 respondents who were equal to 65% of the entire administrative positions in the study University. To a critical reader, it would emerge that the writer overlooked the significance of indicating how long the study lasted. In the article, it is indicated that the study factored academic administrators during the second semester in 2008/2009. It is however not indicated just how long (in months or weeks) the study was, and whether or not it took place in the entire semester. The researcher(s) decision to use a quantitative approach when focusing on one university only also seems to have affected the type of results attained in the research especially if one was to consider that a quantitative study relies on numbers to form an opinion. Structural wise, the methodology section is well structured and is thus easy to read and understand. The research sample, the location, recruitment, data collection and analysis strategies are well indicated. Validity The limited study sample (i.e. 49 in this case), could pose validity and/or reliability issues in the research process considering that the research sample would be considered too small (or insignificant) when compared to the entire academic administrators population in Jordanian Universities. Additionally, HU cannot be taken as a representation of all Jordanian Universities if the quantitative approach was upheld to the latter. According to Sukamolson (2005), unlike qualitative studies, quantitative studies “are better at looking at cause and effect” (p. 10). In cases where the meaning or specific circumstances need to be observed, qualitative research would be a better methodology. The findings The findings section is clear and is systematically written to correspond with questions administered to respondents through the questionnaire. Additionally, the article addressed each of the two aims it had aspired to investigate. The findings form the subject for the discussion section, where the author(s) compare the findings in the study with other research findings from other researchers. Following the connection between the findings and the discussion, it is thus evident that the authors supported the latter using the former. The conclusion and Implications The ‘conclusion and implications’ section of the article is well articulated, and generally summarizes the findings of the study. The contents of the conclusion remain within the findings as indicated in the preceding sections of the article. Seeing that conclusion and implications have different meanings, the author(s) has successfully separated the two by indicating the conclusion, and stating its implication. For example, the conclusion that academic administrators at Hashemite University promote peace education moderately has an implication- i.e. it draws attention to HU’s need to peace education related issues. Limitations The author(s) does not indicate the limitations of the study. In this writer’s view however, the limited number of participants (i.e. 49 people), coupled by the fact that the study was only done in one Jordanian University could qualify as valid limitations. Comments/Conclusion In general, the article under critical appraisal matches the standard criteria for written research articles. However, the researcher(s) seems to have confused which methodology was best suited for their kind of work. For example, using quantitative research approach in an exploratory research seems to represent a conflict. Additionally, it would appear that a qualitative approach would have been better suited for the type of research work that is discussed in the article. Overall however, the article is well formatted, with only few grammatical errors detected. Additionally, the researchers were consistent in the different parts of the research article, which was evident in how the numbers in the methodology section matched with numbers indicated in the findings section. Answers to questions 1. Research paradigm used in the article: As indicated in the article, the research adopted a quantitative methodology, which is often associated with the positivism paradigm. In research, a paradigm is defined as the “basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 105). The positivist paradigm on its part asserts that “real events can be observed empirically and explained with logical analysis” (Kaboub, n.d., p. 304). In the article, the researcher(s) seem to be guided by similar convictions as expressed by Kaboub. 2. Does the research use theoretical or conceptual framework? No. Sinclair (2007) defines theoretical or conceptual frameworks as “a map or travel plan” that involves the use of theories and existing knowledge (p. 1). A critical look at the article in focus reveals that no theories are used. It appears that the researcher(s) in his/her quest to create new knowledge regarding his/her topic of study did not need consider it necessary to have a theoretical guide. The researcher(s) limited use of existing literature is further evidence that he/she did not rely on theoretical or conceptual models. 3. Qualitative or Quantitative? As indicated by the author(s), the study under review is quantitative. Specifically, the research is exploratory since it seeks to identify the extent to which academic instructors in a specific Jordanian University contribute to peace education. Notably, the research used self-reported questionnaires that carry some validity limitations. Additionally, the fact that the researcher(s) did not describe “contribution” as a construct or measurement further cast doubt on the validity of the findings. In other words, the researcher could have indicated how they would measure “contribution”. In this writer’s opinion, a qualitative approach would have been more fitting for the research since it would have enabled the researcher(s) to make “inquiry from the inside” as indicated by Ospina (2004, p. 4). Following Lincoln’s (2003) observation that qualitative researchers “study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena…” it is thus arguable that the researcher(s) could have avoided the self-bias that comes with self-reported questionnaires, if they had adopted the qualitative research approach (p. 3). 4. The purposes of the study. As indicated above, the research is exploratory in nature, and is specifically meant to investigate how the academic administrators in HU contribute to peace education among students. The use of questions enables the researcher to move into different “aspects of the topic as they move deeper into the discussion” (Exploratory Research Web Notes, 2003, p.5). Similar sentiments are expressed by Panneerselvam (2004) who observes that exploratory research enables the researcher to get a clearer understanding of a subject or concept. In the article under critical appraisal, questionnaires were used, hence supporting the observation that the research was exploratory. References EBP Tutorial. (2005). Evidence-based practice tutorials – critical appraisal skills. Retrieved November 24, 2012, fromhttp://www.brighton.ac.uk/ncor/tutorials/EBP_Tutorial_intro_Critical_Appraisal_Skills.pdf Exploratory Research Web Notes. (2003). The purpose of exploratory research: good research questions. Retrieved November, 24, 2012, from http://campus.udayton.edu/~jrs/tools/notes/exploratory%20research.pdf Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaboub, F. (2008). Positivist paradigm. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://personal.denison.edu/~kaboubf/Pub/2008-Positivist-Paradigm.pdf Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-4/krauss.pdf Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication Inc. Metcalfe, M. (2006). Reading critically at university. London: Sage. Ospina, S. (2004). Qualitative research. In Goethals, G., G Sorenson, & J MacGregor (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Leadership. London, CA: Sage. Panneerselvam, R. (2004). Research Methodology. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Parthasarathy, B. (2008). The ethnographic case study. Global Impact Study. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/2008/07/the-ethnographic-case-study-approach/ Patton, M .Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Russell, J. (2008). Academic writing: writing a critical review. CSU Learning Skills: your link to Success. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/82798/criticalreview.pdf Sinclair, M. (2007). Editorial: A guide to understanding theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Evidence Based Midwifery 5(2): 39. Sukamolson, S. (2005). Fundamentals of quantitative research. E-Journal, retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/e-Journal/bod/Suphat%20Sukamolson.pdf Wolrldnet (n.d.). WorldNet Search- Contribution. Princeton Education. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=contribution Read More