Based on the two articles, the authors utilized different designs in their respective researches. The study conducted by Marker, et al. (2013) utilized a case study design wherein the development and situation of one particular school is observed overtime. In their study, they considered the budget cut experiences of Stake Elementary in Bakersfield County, North Carolina and its effects on the faculty and students of the school. The use of a case study in their research allows intensive study on the research participants especially when dealing with the observations of the participants’ behavior which is what the researchers what to observe in the research. Also, the use of case study as a design gives the researchers good insights about possible innovations and ideas regarding the solutions for the dilemmas experienced by the school and its faculty and staff. On the other hand, the study conducted by Steyn (2006) utilized phenomenology as the research’s study design. Phenomenology is a study design that deals with the structures of consciousness as experienced by the author during his/her field research. This design works best for the research because it allows to give an in depth understanding of the human experiences of the participants involved in the research.
For the process of data collection, the study conducted by Steyn (2006) collected data by doing an interview during the author’s field research in the schools. Steyn used an interview guide to facilitate the interview which comprised of the following: “the role of leadership, the role of staff, the influence of external and internal school conditions and the requirements of the Professional Development (PD) programme on Invitational Education (IE). Other interviews were also conducted with the nine school principals and one assistant principal, assistant teachers of each school participating in the research, and an IE consultant from New Mexico. The timetable and the circumstances of the school were the deciding factor on the type of interview to be conducted which can either be individual or focus group. A duration of 60-90 minutes for the interview with the principals, individual teachers, and consultant was conducted while about 95 minutes of interview was done for the focus groups. The interview was recorded through tape recording and note taking and was coded in the computer for data analysis. On the other hand, the study conducted by Marker, et al (2013) which utilized a case study design collected data in a different way. First, the authors determined the case that they should be considering which is needed to be able to make their study externally valid or generalizable, credible, and dependable. They defined their case as a school which experienced challenges after the approval of the budget cuts of the district. The researchers also chose the location of the school which is a rural community which is struggling to maintain and keep qualified teachers. After defining the case, the researchers obtained the narrative of the case either by field interview, focus group interview, or by observation.
In terms of result presentation, the study by Steyn (2006) utilized a model to ensure that the research is valid and reliable. To ensure that the data gathered were credible, the author included four criteria namely reflexivity which was applied by taking field notes, triangulation which was attained by doing interviews, taking field notes, and practicing literature control, checking which was done by doing a literature control of description, and lastly the authority of the researcher which was attained by having a previous experience on qualitative research. For the technique of transferability, the author considered 3 criteria which includes nominated sample, comparison sample, and dense description. For the dependability strategy of the research, the author identified 2 criteria namely dependability audit and dense description of research method. Lastly, the author also considered the technique of confirmability which was considered using 2 criteria namely triangulation and reflexivity. On the other hand, the study of Marker, et al (2013) only presented the results of the research by providing a narrative of the research’s case. The authors also included statements from the participants involved in their research. However, unlike the previous article, the qualitative techniques of analysis was not shown in the paper.
Taking into consideration the paper conducted by Steyn (2006), I can say that the needed elements of a qualitative research have been adequately presented. First, the author was able to point out that the paper aimed to identify the factors that contribute to the effectivity of implementing and sustaining IE in schools by indicating it as the main objective or research question of the paper. The author also made sure that the research is valid and reliable by adapting the model of Guba for trustworthiness which included four strategies of qualitative research to ensure trustworthiness such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The selection of the participating schools were also properly done by doing a purposeful and convenience sampling of the schools which are IE award winners. Doing a sampling made the research externally valid which means that the results presented by the author can be generalized and used by other researchers from rural areas. Lastly, the author considered the ethical considerations for the research by making sure that the participants of the research agreed to participate in it and that their responses and interviews were recorded and were used for the data analysis of the research. Overall, I commend the author for doing all the necessary precautions, preparations, and considerations when doing a qualitative research which made the paper complete and trustworthy.
For the study conducted by Marker, et al (2013), I believe that more could have been done to improve the paper and the research as well. Unlike the previous research, this study did not provide direct research questions that should be answered by the research. Thus, it can lead to confusions as to the purpose of the research. Also, the validity and sampling process of the research and the selection of participants was not adequately discussed in the paper. The only thing provided by the author is the case narrative which does not provide how the narrative was chosen and does not ensure the validity of the results and the research itself. Most importantly, the ethical considerations of the research was also not provided in the paper. The only thing discussed and included by the authors were the fact that the authors have no potential conflicts of interest with the research, authorship, and the publication of the article, and that the authors did not receive compensation for the research. Overall, I think that the research lacked a lot of things compared to the previous research and that this paper could still be improved.
References
Marker, K., Mitchall, A., and Lassiter, S.M. (2013). Doing More With Less: How to Maintain the Integrity of Beginning Teacher Support Programs. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 16(1):73-81.
Steyn, G.M. (2006). A Qualitative Study of the Aspects Influencing the Implementation of Invitational Education in Schools in the United States of America. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice 12:17-36.
