Managing Research: Article Critique

MANAGING RESEARCH 1
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Name
Tutor
Institution
Date of submission

MANAGING RESEARCH 2
Q1. Evaluate the literature review conducted in this research article?
The authors reviewed a couple of articles which offered them a wide and diverse knowledge
concerning the subject matter. They defined key terms such as casual work (Sheehan and Nelson,
2005, p. 3) and gave background information regarding call center that gives the readers a deep
understanding of where the author is ending to. They cited several articles that shed more light
on their topic of interest. These articles were comparing and contrasting between different
researchers, thereby laying a foundation on the way forward. Also, the authors reviewed the
literature in such a way it led them to their research objective hence enabling them to deduce a
research hypothesis.
Due to the well-reviewed literature, the authors were able to refine their research problem
accurately. They were also able to project the probable result hence helping them to design their
questionnaires in a manner they would achieve better results. The arguments and message the
authors were passing was clear and well understood. The flow of information was also well
organized making the authors to indicate the hypothesis in an orderly manner. They choose the
articles well since they all point back to their research topic. The review brings out the
motivator-hygiene theory and HRM theories and concepts and how they influence job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction of employees. This looks into factors such as pay, benefits, and
recognition. These factors are important in helping the authors design their questionnaires.
Through the review, the authors identified areas that have not been studies enough and those that
have researched enough. As a result, they identified the research problem faster.
The strength of the literature review was that it was able to offer deeper insights on the subject
matter. Thereby, making it easier to identify research gaps. Similarly, it identified major areas of
concern, hence guiding the authors on how to structure their study.

MANAGING RESEARCH 3
However, the major weakness of the study is that it used some articles that were very old. For
instance, Warr, cool, & Wall, (1979). It is always advisable to use articles not older than ten
years. You can only quote an older one if you really have to. Nevertheless, the literature review
was adequate and well done.
Q2. Are the methods used to collect data sufficiently justified and described? What further
information (if any) do you require?
I believe the data collection methods used by the authors are not sufficiently justified and
described. The authors do not tell us how the study was conducted. It speaks of the
questionnaires and the sample population, but doesn’t further say how they were administered to
the participants. They used a five-point Likert scale (Sheehan and Nelson, 2005, p. 5) to gather
information regarding HRM practices. However, they do not tell us the representation of the
Likert scale from 1-5. Also, I believe only one open-ended question at the end was not effective
enough. It is always important to give the participants a chance to speak out their minds
concerning various issues. The disadvantage with the Likert scale is that it restricts the
respondent to the views given by the researchers. As such, they are bound to answer according to
the choices given. People usually have diverse idea, therefore, it is important for to give them a
chance to express their thoughts freely concerning a matter. Thus, I would recommend mixing of
both closed and open-ended questions in a questionnaire.
Likewise, the authors indicate that they conducted interviews with the manager of the call center
(Sheehan and Nelson, 2005, p. 5) but does not explain how the interview was conducted. It is
important to let the readers understand how you collected your data so that they can reproduce
the same when carrying out a similar experiment. Failure to describe step by step procedure of
the methodology used, it leaves the readers in darkness not knowing how you arrived at the data