Introduction
In order to evaluate any quantitative study, we need to pay special attention to such aspects as the use of research methods and their appropriateness, the sampling procedure, the validity of the information, obtained in the course of investigation, and finally, the importance of the work and its implications (Black, 1999, p 18). In this paper, out task is to compare and contrast two articles, dedicated to the sphere of education. In particularly, it is necessary to analyze the strategies that the authors have employed and most importantly their line of reasoning.
The managerial roles of Chief Academic Officers
At first, we may refer to the study conducted by Phillip Anderson and other scholars. Overall, it aims to examine managerial roles of Chief Academic Officers (or CAO) and the factors, which affect the behavior of these people (Anderson et al, 2002, p 4). The importance of this work should not be underestimated, because the representatives of this profession play a significant role in the life of any college or university, and they even shape the image of educational institution.
Thus, the scholars have tried to explore the internal and external environment, which influences their perception of their functions and the degree of satisfaction. This research work is helpful to that extent that it provides helpful tips as to the skills obligatory for any CAO, and shows what people should do in order to improve their efficiency.
The research questions, formulated by the authors correspond, are supposed to give insights into the functions, performed by CAO. They correspond to the standards of the sociological study and fully comply with the objectives, set by the scholars. The authors gave preference to such method as structured survey with Likert scale ((Anderson et al, 2002). Such approach is quite understandable because Likert scale enables to assess peoples attitude toward certain phenomenon and present the facts in a numerical way. In this case, the researchers intend to measure the level of satisfaction, but the major task of the questionnaire which managerial role they emphasize.
As regards the analysis of the data we should first mention the so-called ANOVA or analysis of variance. The use of this method is also quite justified because this technique helps to trace the impact of one variable on another (Blumer, 1999). For example, the authors discuss how such parameters as age, experience, gender can affect the performance of Chief Academic Officers. This study meets compulsory standards of sociological research, the results are published with the consent of the participants and their identities are not disclosed in this article.
In this research, the sampling procedure was based on the selection of the target population in accrediting regions of the country. This is quite understandable, but the scholars do not explain why they have oversampled some regions, namely, we should speak about the Northern Central and Western region. It seems that such deviation can question the validity of the results. The findings indicate that the perception of managerial functions mostly depends upon age, and experience in this position.
Naturally, this investigation appears to be quite grounded, but, it may be further continued. The scholars focus only on community colleges and, they can widen the scope of their research by examining the roles of CAO in private colleges giving wider range of courses. The thing is that community colleges usually offer only two-year courses and they are usually regarded with uncertainty or apprehension. It seems that the behavior of chief academic officers can also determined by the type of educational institution, and this hypothesis should be tested.
The impact of message framing
At this point, we need to draw parallels between this study and another research article. Naturally, they are designed to explore different issues but some similarities can be observed. First, the research, carried out by Danny Tansley and other authors is designed to find out how exactly message framing influences career decision making. This work is useful because in the long run it may help educators to stimulate their students in a more efficient way.
In the course of the investigation, the researchers used several methods. First, they employed structured survey with Likert scale items. But the major difference is that that they tried to prompt students to certain actions, and this is usually called field experiment. This was a necessary measure because only by intervention, the scholars could obtain some very important facts (Tansley et al, 2002). Their major goal was to describe the difference between gain and loss-framed instructions.
The gain-framed instructions usually emphasize the benefits of some actions, for example, “By putting effort in your career, youll be more successful” In turn, loss-framed questions mostly based on admonitions or even threats “If you blow off putting effort in your career, you wont be as successful” (Tansley et al, 2002, p 305). According to the findings loss-framed instructions give more powerful stimulus for actions.
Nonetheless, we may argue that the validity of these findings can be questioned. First, we should mention the sampling; the students were selected randomly, regardless of their psychological characteristics, such as IQ level, academic performance, resolution, motivation, and concerns about their career prospects. The major problem is that the authors did not compare the impact of both gain and loss-framed-message on one person.
They could only advance a hypothesis, it was not fully substantiated. As for the analysis of the data, we should say that Danny Tansley also gave preference to ANOVA in order to trace the relationships between message framing and subsequent behavior of students but again, we have to stress the fact that some very important factors have been overlooked. However, the research in this field has a great potential.
Conclusion
To conclude, the similar features between these quantitative designs are the use of surveys with Likert scale questions and the use of ANOVA method during the analysis of the results. The main difference is that in his study, Danny Tansley uses experiment in order to prompt subjects to certain conduct. Moreover, we should say that sampling procedures in both works contain certain drawback which subsequently cast doubt on the validity of the findings.
Reference List
Anderson, P., Murray, J. P., & Olivarez, A. (2002). The managerial roles of public community college chief academic officers. Community College Review, 30(2), 1–26. Web.
Blumer. M (1999). Sociological research methods. Transaction Publishers.
Creswell. J (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. SAGE..
Tansley, D. P., Jome, L. M., Hasse, R. F., & Martens, M. P. (2007). The effects of message framing on college students’ career decision making. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 301–316. Web.
Thomas R. Black (1999). “Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: an integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics”. SAGE.