RCH7301 Methods of Psychological Safety and Ethical Leadership

December 6, 2022

RCH7301 Methods of Psychological Safety and Ethical Leadership

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

RCH7301 Methods of Psychological Safety and Ethical Leadership

[Order Now]

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

Assess theoretical research methodologies in contemporary business scholarship. 4.1 Evaluate the alignment of research methodology with a problem to be studied. 4.2 Deduce the best research methodology to use in studying a problem.
Implement a critical thinking process for business research methodology.

7.1 Establish the relationship between research methodology and a study’s hypotheses.

Course/Unit Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

4.1

Unit Lesson Chapter 8, pp. 208–220 Article:” Ethical Leadership and Knowledge Hiding: A Moderated Mediation

Model of Psychological Safety and Mastery Climate” Unit III Article Critique

4.2

Unit Lesson Chapter 8, pp. 208–220 Article:” Ethical Leadership and Knowledge Hiding: A Moderated Mediation

Model of Psychological Safety and Mastery Climate” Unit III Article Critique

7.1

Unit Lesson Chapter 8, pp. 208–220 Article:” Ethical Leadership and Knowledge Hiding: A Moderated Mediation

Model of Psychological Safety and Mastery Climate” Unit III Article Critique

Required Unit Resources Chapter 8: Mixed Methods Research Design, pp. 208–220 In order to access the resource below, utilize the CSU Online Library to begin your research. Men, C., Fong, P. S. W., Huo, W., Zhong, J., Jia, R., & Luo, J. (2020, October). Ethical leadership and

knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(3), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4027-7

Unit Lesson

Research Methodology and Design First, to begin a study, the researcher must have a good general knowledge of research methods. One of the problem areas that many early researchers fall into is developing an all-too-quick familiarity with one or two methodological approaches and not looking at the range of methods and analytical approaches that are available.

For instance, if a researcher is not comfortable with math, they may prefer to avoid conducting quantitative research. In contrast, if a researcher prefers to review data, they may be uninterested in interviewing people. With a limited mindset, a researcher is limiting the full range of possibilities available to them, which can negatively impact the study.

Without delving in and learning about the many aspects of research methodology, it creates a situation where the doctoral student has to learn by doing; if they make mistakes while doing the project, then the timeline for the study’s completion is impacted.

Rather than learning by doing, having a body of knowledge to refer to is important and can assist the researcher to select an approach that is appropriate for the research problem. Problems with study design can be avoided by developing a general knowledge of research methods early in the process.

The goal is to make informed choices about methodology from the beginning. To begin learning about research methodology, doctoral students can go to the SAGE Research Methods database in the CSU Online Library. There, we find resources such as the SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research and the SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Research.

Both of these publications show the rich, diverse approaches to research that are possible through qualitative and quantitative methodologies. A second point is to read many examples of good, published research. Good, published research acts as an exemplar, and students can learn a great deal by reading and absorbing studies in their field and areas of interest.

Look for surveys, participant observations, and other methodologies and methods to learn how good research is designed, analyzed, and applied.

Difference Between Research Methodologies and Methods Methodology is the rationale behind your research and the lens through which the researcher analyzes results. Some examples of methodology are listed below.

Phenomenology describes the “lived experience” of a phenomenon. • Ethnography looks at culture and the social norms and behaviors of a group. • Action research is when the researcher systematically looks at a problem and tries various solutions to see how effective, they are. Methods are the tools that researchers use to carry out research. Examples are listed below:
a survey or questionnaire, • a focus group, • a case study, • structured interviews, and • a controlled experiment.

In summary, the methodology is how the researcher will answer the research question, and the method is what the researcher does to collect the data.

Meanings of Quantitative and Qualitative There are two major research paradigms (Creswell et al., 2003). Qualitative research questions usually aim to explore a question with no set hypothesis beforehand.

A qualitative approach is more focused on gaining in- depth insight than it is about making an empirical generalization that can be applied to a population. The design of qualitative studies can be categorized in two ways, which are listed below.

Naturalistic looks at real-world situations as they unfold naturally, and there is a lack of pre-set limitations on findings.
Emergent is when the researcher is open to adjusting their research question and methods to pursue new lines of inquiry as they emerge.

The qualitative design requires that a researcher be comfortable conducting interviews or speaking in front of groups. Examples of qualitative methods include face-to-face interviews that are structured, semi-structured, or unstructured; focus group discussions that are 1–2 hours in length; case studies; observations; and textual analyses.

The quantitative design requires that a researcher be able to take words and turn them into numbers, such as numbers on a Likert scale or numerical responses to survey questions.

A typical quantitative method of data gathering might include a survey involving analysis of primary data collected using a structured questionnaire, statistical analysis of data sets, comparison of data sets, or analysis of population trends. Quantitative research questions usually contain a hypothesis and/or try to predict something.

Quantitative studies are characterized by tools that are carefully designed before data is collected, larger sample sizes, and the ability to be replicated. Quantitative approaches are listed below.

Descriptive: How much? How often? • Comparative: What is the difference between? • Relationship-based: What is the relationship between?

No research design—qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods—is preferable to another, and there is no one right way to design a research project. When you, with the input of your dissertation chair, decide on a design, your choice will align with the internally consistent choices that are within that research tradition (O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015).

The methods map (Figure 1) is a visualization of the steps that researchers take as they make decisions about the research paradigm, data gathering, and data analysis approaches. Ontologically, in terms of the concepts or variables that the researcher wants to study, does an objective or subjective paradigm fit with the data-gathering strategies that the researcher envisions using?

Working through the aligned choices on the methods map can help researchers to position themselves with the interlocking choices that a paradigm suggests, because knowing what those choices entail helps to firm up the concept for the research study.

Choosing a Methodology Following through with the method map’s steps can help you to discover who you are as a researcher, the best way to gather data on your topic, and what shape your research will take.

Knowing your options is important because not only will you explain your methodology, techniques of data gathering, and data analysis approach, but you will also have to explain why you did not select another methodology and its attendant steps.

Which Approach Is Right for This Study? Before the researcher and dissertation chair decide which paradigm is the best fit for the research question, the researcher must consider the following components:

the nature of the research question, • what the researcher seeks to know, • how the researcher will collect the data, and • who they are as a researcher.

Reviewing the continuums suggested in Figure 2 can help the researcher to discover the best approach.

More quantitative in nature More qualitative in nature Positivist paradigm Interpretivist paradigm

Focus on facts

Focus on meaning(s)

Look for causality and fundamental laws

Try to understand what is happening

Reduce phenomena to simplest elements

Look at the totality of each situation

Formulate hypotheses and test them

Develop ideas through induction from the data

Operationalize concepts so that they can be measured

Use multiple methods to establish different views of phenomena Take large samples

Small samples investigated in depth over time

Figure 2: Continuum of research paradigms Choosing a research methodology begins with a consideration of the research question. The researcher should analyze the question and determine what information they will need to address it. Good questions to consider are listed below.

[Order Now]

What kinds of data would help me to answer this question? • How would I want to present my results?

If the answers to these questions lead to a more exploratory approach—working to understand a phenomenon or the behaviors and experiences of a group of people—a qualitative paradigm would give the best results. On the other hand, if the researcher wants to look for correlations, comparisons, relationships, or trends, a quantitative paradigm would work better.

Conclusion

The goal of all research is to make sense of the data and relate it back to the research question, answering how it addresses a gap in the literature. Check that the analysis has not already been done and reported. Be flexible in data-gathering strategies and in how data is interpreted and comprehended.

In all likelihood, the researcher will get more data than the study requires, so it is important to work with the dissertation chair to make sense of it and write a discussion that interprets it as a part of a dialogue in the topic area.

RCH7301 Methods of Psychological Safety and Ethical Leadership

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.