Article: “Ergonomics for Telecommuters and Other Remote Workers” by Jessica K. Ellison.
Introduction to the article
In a peer-reviewed professional journal, the introduction should first address the research problem by stating the general area of concern. Additionally, the introduction should highlight what is contained in the rest of the journal, and brief statistics should similarly be provided to show the prevalence of the research problem (Aguinis & Henle, 2002). The research questions should then be answered by describing the general study area explaining the reasons why such a method is significant to the overall field under study (Gravetter & Forzano, 2011). When needed, sub-headings should be used to point out where investigative data can be found. Most of the essential parts of an introduction are ignored in this peer-reviewed professional journal. However, the introduction part is very clear on what the journal is all about.
A statement of the research problem
The criteria for a good research were not followed throughout this section since the specific objectives and problems being addressed were not clearly indicated. A good research should have a problem statement as a subheading in the introduction section. This is important because the research objectives and questions are usually drawn from the problem that necessitated the carrying out of a specific study (Aguinis & Henle, 2002).
The omission of this section makes it difficult for readers to identify issues that are addressed by the study. Further, failure to identify the questions that are addressed by the data makes the study lack sense of direction. Nonetheless, by reading through the introduction, the problem being addressed by the research may be identified. In this case, the problem addressed was whether the ergonomic risks of employees working in corporate offices are similar to the risks encountered by computer-based employees working at home.
Description of the research procedures
The research procedure contains information on how data could be gathered to attain the research objectives. The data gathered also seeks to answer the research questions and assess the hypothesis (Gravetter & Forzano, 2011).
This requires a well-defined design, sample population as well as methods and tools needed to gather data. In order to evaluate the capabilities of accomplishing the research objectives, the design criteria should include the type of design, the required population sample, sampling techniques, instrumentation, data-gathering procedures and data analysis techniques (Czaja & Blair, 2005). The appropriate criteria for a good research were not included in the peer-reviewed journal since the specific objectives or the research problems being addressed were not clearly indicated. In fact, the author totally ignored this important section in this academic journal.
Flaws in the procedural design
As indicated above, a good research procedure should follow the criteria, specifically under the methodology. However, the research procedure in this peer reviewed professional journal could be seen to have the following flaws if each criterion is to be analyzed.
Study design
The study design is the systematic steps put in place to achieve the study purpose. The purpose of the study determines the appropriate method to be used and how the study is to be conducted (Czaja & Blair, 2005). Moreover, the study design determines the specific hypotheses to be tested as well as the efficient study method to be used. In this article, the study purpose was to compare risks involved in both employees working in the corporate office with computer-based employees working at home. Determining the appropriate experimental design as well as the hypotheses to be tested would be useful in guiding the research procedure (Spector, 2006).
Besides, the layout used in the peer-reviewed professional journal was unsuitable for a quantitative study. That is, quantitative aspects of research studies such as hypotheses were not specified. The authors also did not show any understanding of research design by ignoring the steps used to attain the data. In essence, any information in the peer-reviewed professional journals demands explanations regarding visible occurrences. In particular, two cases that were to be compared in this article should have been brought out more quantitatively. This aspect of qualitative study makes the reader understand the discussed outcomes of the study (Gravetter & Forzano, 2011).
Study population sampling
In a good research procedure, the sampling population should clearly be defined. In addition, the explanation for the sampling procedure and methods, advantages and disadvantages of using such sampling procedures as well as how and why this practice was carried out should clearly be described (Gravetter & Forzano, 2011). That is, how the researcher arrived at the sample used in the study. Additionally, the sample size and limitations should be brief but clearly explained. Since the research procedure was ignored, the readers of the academic journal are left to guess the type of sample that was used to generalize the findings of the study.
Measurement
Proper research procedures were not followed in this peer-reviewed journal since this section is not indicated. The researchers simply presented the case studies that were conducted by other organizations. The extensive explanations on the relevance of this specific study were not presented (Aguinis & Henle, 2002). The author managed to bring out different findings from various researches in an effort to qualify different elements of this study.
Methods for data collection
Criteria for a properly carried out research are not followed with regards to this section of the study. This is because there are no indications that there were prior plans to collect data from the targeted area (Aguinis & Henle, 2002). Although the journal indicates that various studies were done concerning the subject of the study, there is no clear explanation on how such techniques were used. As such, it may be said that this peered-reviewed journal was not procedurally written thus the obtained information were not objective as required.
Analysis of the data
In this peer-reviewed professional journal, there is no indication of any data to be analyzed. The review was not carried out in a manner that is an easily comprehendible hence failure to follow proper research criteria. Suffice to say that information on data analysis in this research was not sufficient since the applied methods were not properly brought out. Additionally, the reliability and validity of the data purported to have been collected in this study could not be verified.
Limited and justifiable conclusions
Under these sections, proper criteria for appropriate research procedure were not followed. Moreover, the limitations of the study were also not specified. Therefore, the outcomes of the study could not be verified. Though the author claims were based on the purported collected data, the values could not be upheld since no research procedure was presented to back the information. In other words, the conclusions were based on the reviewed literature.
References
Aguinis, H. & Henle, C. (2002). Ethics in research. Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Czaja, R. & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Gravetter, F. & Forzano, L. (2011). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Farmington Hills, MI: Cengage Learning.
Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9(4), 221-232.