An Examination of Research Agency and its Practical Applications

Abeni El-Amin

doi:10.21467/exr.1.1.4263

Authors

Abeni El-Amin Fort Hays State University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7506-1658

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21467/exr.1.1.4263

Abstract

The goal of this evaluation is to offer instructive practice on how to improve researcher agency. Indicated are how the literature review is an investigative process providing context to research studies and overall scholarship. Further, practical connection exhibits how exceptional research skills improve the body of information, structure, and quality needed to investigate global issues. Researchers provide a comprehensive analysis of phenomena to convey conceptual, theoretical, and empirical analysis of studies. Further, substantive feedback from collaborative research teams allows for corroboration and a refined final product. Likewise, the content of a research study must align to reflect objectivity and continuity. Conclusively, researchers must employ a regimented and ethical process to refine conceptual, theoretical, empirical, or grey literature studies to provide focus, clarity, and organization.

Keywords:

Literature Review, Research Quality, Research Agency

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Ali, A. A., Singh, S. K., Al-Nahyan, M., & Sohal, A. S. (2017). Change management through leadership: The mediating role of organizational culture. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.

Amiot, C. E., Sukhanova, K., & Bastian, B. (2020). Social identification with animals: Unpacking our psychological connection with other animals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 118(5), 991.

Arthur, J. (Ed.). (2012). Research methods and methodologies in education. Sage publications.

Belmont Report. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Sage publications.

Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253-263.

Eisner, E. W. (2017). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Teachers College Press.

Ferreira, R., Ebersöhn, L., & Mbongwe, B. B. (2015). Power-sharing partnerships: teachers' experiences of participatory methodology. Progress in community health partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 9(1), 7-16.

Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Medical teacher, 34(5), e288-e299.

Frey, A., & Seitz, N. N. (2009). Multidimensional adaptive testing in educational and psychological measurement: Current state and future challenges. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2-3), 89-94.

Granic, A., & Cukusic, M. (2011). Usability testing and expert inspections complemented by educational evaluation: A case study of an e-learning platform. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 107.

Haig, B. D. (2018). An abductive theory of scientific method. In Method Matters in Psychology (pp. 35-64). Springer, Cham.

Howe, A. (2019). Why Kant animals have rights?. Journal of Animal Ethics, 9(2), 137-142.

Jääskelä, P., Heilala, V., Kärkkäinen, T., & Häkkinen, P. (2021). Student agency analytics: Learning analytics as a tool for analyzing student agency in higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(8), 790-808. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1725130

Jones, N. & Preskill, H. (2009). A practical guide for engaging stakeholders in developing evaluation questions. http://www.pointk.org/resources/files/rwj.stakeholders.final.1.pdf

Knight, P. (2012). Assessment for learning in higher education. Routledge.

Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). The design and practice of integrating evidence: connecting performance management with program evaluation. Public administration Review, 78(2), 183-194.

McLeod, S. (2017). The Milgram shock experiment. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection, and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9-18.

Okoroma, F. N. (2011). Towards effective management of grey literature for higher education, research, and national development. Library Review.

Makowski, P. (2021). Practical intentionality: Injecting analytical theory of agency into organizational research. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2021, No. 1, p. 10880). Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.144

Nguyen, H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). The effective management of mergers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(8), 447-454.

Peterson, J. (2019). An analysis of academic dishonesty in online classes. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 31(1).

Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Sage Publications.

Privitera, G. (2019). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Sage.

Rigler Jr, K. L., Anastasia, C. M., El-Amin, A., & Throne, R. (2021). Scholarly voice and academic identity: A systematic review of doctoral student agency. Handbook of Research on Developing Students’ Scholarly Dispositions in Higher Education, 63-89.

Schildkamp, K., & Visscher, A. (2009). Factors influencing the utilization of a school self-evaluation instrument. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(4), 150-159.

Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M. M., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Critical analysis of big data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research, 70, 263-286.

Somers, M. A., Zhu, P., Jacob, R., & Bloom, H. (2013). The validity and precision of the comparative interrupted time series design and the difference-in-difference design in educational evaluation. MDRC.

Sprumont, D. (2020). Research Ethics Regulation. Ethical Research: The Declaration of Helsinki, and the Past, Present, and Future of Human Experimentation, 241.

Stewart, C. (2014). Transforming professional development to professional learning. Journal of Adult Education, 43(1), 28-33.

Strijbos, J. W. (2011). Assessment of (computer-supported) collaborative learning. IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 4(1), 59-73.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31-62). Springer, Dordrecht.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist. https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u350/2014/cippchecklist_mar07.pdf

Tarzian, A. J. (2017). Ethicist. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics: 1-9.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.

Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2017). Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243-267.

Tuckman, B. W., & Harper, B. E. (2012). Conducting educational research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in educational evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (Kellogg). (2017). The step-by-step guide to evaluation how to become savvy evaluation consumers. https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2010/w-k-kellogg-foundation-evaluation-handbook

Yang, W., Li, Y., Zhou, W., & Li, H. (2020). Learning to design research: Students’ agency and experiences in a Master of Education program in Hong Kong. ECNU Review of Education, 3(2), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120917163

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). Thomson/South-Western.