| Assessment Overview | |
| Assessment | AT1 Review on Qualitative Studies |
| Mark | 20 Marks |
| Due Date | Week 4 – Sunday 11:59pm |
| Submission method | Via the assignment drop box on eLearning |
| Submission format | PDF file (.pdf) or Word (.doc) only |
| Other Requirements | Word limit: 1500 words (Excluding cover page and references) Use 12 pt font Double-space your document to allow room for feedback State your name and student number in the document header State the word count in the document header Include a cover page Comply with the APA referencing style |
For this assessment, you will be required to select a minimum of six (6) recent journal articles in a research area that utilises qualitative research methods. Based on the selected articles, you are required to write a 1,500-word review (excluding references) by identifying the following for the chosen articles:
Marking Criteria
If your reason is invalid, if you do not provide evidence, or if your application is not made within 5 days of the due date your application will be rejected, and you lose 25 marks for this course.
You may use generative AI tools such as Chat GPT or Microsoft Co Pilot ONLY to research and brainstorm ideas and approaches for completing your reflection. Please make sure to properly acknowledge any use of generative AI using the CIM APA Referencing Guide.
| Not Attempted (0) | Fail (1–34) | Marginal Fail (35–49) | Pass (50–64) | Credit (65–74) | Distinction (75–84) | High Distinction (85–100) | |
| Introduction (10%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Very brief and provides little or no background information to the review. | Very brief and provides limited background information of the review. | Outlines the scope of the review. | Demonstrates some understanding of the review conducted. | Outlines the scope of the review and provides relevant background information about the review conducted. Demonstrates adequate understanding of the review conducted and scientific methods involved with the review. | Outlines the scope of the review and provides informative background information about the review conducted. Demonstrates a sound understanding of the scientific methods underpinning the review. Provides a detailed, clear, and informative explanation of the review conducted. Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the scientific methods underpinning the review. |
| Selection of articles (10%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Selected papers lack relevancy to the assignment requirements. | Few of the papers are somewhat relevant to the assignment requirements. | Some of the papers are closely relevant to assignment requirements. | Many of the papers are relevant to the assignment requirements. | Most of the papers are relevant to the assignment requirements. | All papers are relevant to the assignment requirements. |
| Research gaps/problems addressed and research questions explored (10%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Very limited demonstration of understanding of the research problem/gaps and research questions addressed in the selected articles. | Limited demonstration of understanding of the research problem/gaps and research questions addressed in the selected articles. | Some demonstration of understanding of the research problem/gaps and research questions addressed in the selected articles. | Reasonable demonstration of understanding of the research problem/gaps addressed in the selected articles. Identifies one or few research questions addressed in the selected articles. | Clear demonstration of understanding of the research problem/gaps addressed in the selected articles. Identifies most of the research questions addressed in the selected articles. | Excellent demonstration of understanding of the research problem/gaps addressed in the selected articles. Identifies all of the research questions addressed in the selected articles. |
| Research methods used (20%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Very limited demonstration of understanding of the methods used. Provides minimal details about the research methods in the selected articles. | Limited demonstration of understanding of the methods used in the selected articles. Provides basic details about the research methods in the selected articles. | Demonstrates some level of understanding of the research methods used in the selected articles. Provides some details about the research methods used in the selected articles. | Reasonable demonstration of understanding of the research methods used in the selected articles. Provides relevant details and justification on the research methods used in the selected articles. | Clear demonstration of understanding of the research methods used in the selected articles. Provides adequate justification along with necessary details for the research methods used in the selected articles. | Excellent demonstration of understanding of the research methods used in the selected articles. Provides excellent justification for the research methods used in the selected articles. |
| Data collection techniques used with numbers and justification as to why the specific data collection techniques were selected (20%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Very limited demonstration of understanding of the data collection techniques used in the selected articles. | Limited demonstration of understanding of the data collection techniques used in the selected articles and provides minimal justification. | Demonstrates some level of understanding of the data collection techniques used in the selected articles and provides some justification. | Reasonable demonstration of understanding of the data collection techniques used in the selected articles and provides relevant details and justification. | Clear demonstration of understanding of the data collection techniques used in the selected articles and provides necessary details and adequate justification. | Clear demonstration of understanding of the data collection techniques used in the selected articles, provides clear details and excellent justification. |
| Process of collecting data (10%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Very poor attempt on analysis and evaluation of the process adopted to collect data in the selected articles. No details provided on steps adopted. | Poor attempt on analysis and evaluation of the process adopted to collect data in the selected articles. Minimal and irrelevant details provided on steps adopted. | Limited attempt on analysis and evaluation of the process adopted to collect data in the selected articles. Minimal and relevant details provided on steps adopted. | Reasonable attempt on analysis and evaluation of the process adopted to collect data in the selected articles. Provides relevant details on steps adopted. | Good attempt on analysis and evaluation of the process adopted to collect data in the selected articles. Provides relevant and some details on steps adopted. | Excellent attempt on analysis and evaluation of the process adopted to collect data in the selected articles. Provides relevant, clear, and complete details on steps adopted. |
| Conclusion (10%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Underdeveloped. | Key elements are not well summarised. | Key elements are somewhat summarised. | Key elements are adequately summarised. | Effectively summarises the key elements. | Effectively wraps up and re-stresses the importance of the key elements. |
| Report organisation grammar & mechanics (10%) | Not attempted/Not addressed | Very poor sentence structure and uses inappropriate language or language that is too informal. Significant grammatical errors, and/or Contains errors that are identified by MS Word software but were not corrected. Review is unreasonably too long or too short. Citations and references are missing. | Very poor sentence structure, and inappropriate language or language that is too informal. Significant grammatical errors. Review is much longer or shorter than the assignment requirement. Citations and references are missing. | Paragraph structure needs improvement (some may be incomplete, or focus on too many issues, or be incoherent). Topic sentences do not effectively signal structure of argument or lack focus/clarity. Poor sentence structure. Writing may be wordy or difficult to follow in places. Some grammatical errors. Review is too long or too short. Most of the citations and references are included and are in the correct format. | Adequate organisation of the review. Most paragraphs focus on a single topic and are coherently structured. Adequate sentence structure but may require editing for clarity/wordiness. Few grammatical errors, but these do not impede understanding. Citations and references are included with some issues in formatting. | Well organised. All paragraphs contain topic sentences, focus on a single issue and are coherently structured. Mostly clear, concise sentences. No grammatical errors. Citations and references are included in the correct format; may have minor errors. | Very well organised. Paragraphs contain clear topic sentences, focus on a single issue, are coherent, and organised according to an obvious pattern of argument. Clear, concise sentences. No grammatical errors. Citations and references are included in the correct format. |
Note: This report is provided as a sample for reference purposes only. For further guidance, detailed solutions, or personalized assignment support, please contact us directly.
AT1: Review on Qualitative Studies
A Review of Qualitative Research Methods in
Organizational Leadership and Workplace Studies
Submitted by:
Jane Smith
Student ID: 12345678
Canterbury Institute of Management
Week 4 – Sunday 11:59pm
Word Count: 1,498
Qualitative research methods have become indispensable tools for investigating complex social phenomena in organisational and management contexts. Unlike quantitative approaches that prioritise numerical measurement and statistical generalisation, qualitative methodologies seek to uncover the meanings, processes, and experiences that underpin human behaviour within real-world settings (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This review examines six recent peer-reviewed journal articles that employ qualitative methods to explore research problems in the domains of organisational leadership, employee well-being, workplace diversity, and knowledge management. The review critically analyses each article's research gaps and questions, the qualitative research methods deployed, data collection techniques and their justifications, data collection processes, and adherence to ethical protocols. Together, the selected studies illustrate the breadth and rigour with which qualitative researchers engage with complex phenomena that resist purely quantitative investigation.
Research Gaps, Problems, and Research Questions
Each of the six articles was motivated by a clearly identified gap in the extant literature. Brown and Nguyen (2021) observed that, although transformational leadership has been extensively studied in Western contexts, little is known about how it manifests in Southeast Asian family-owned enterprises, leading them to ask: How do leaders in Vietnamese family businesses construct and communicate their leadership identity? Similarly, Okafor et al. (2022) noted a dearth of research on the lived experiences of Black women in senior corporate roles in Australia, formulating the question: What barriers and enabling factors shape the career progression of Black female executives?
Chen and Park (2020) identified a gap concerning how remote-work policies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic affected employees' sense of organisational belonging, asking: How do employees experience psychological safety in virtual work environments? Fernandez and Rios (2023) addressed the under-explored intersection of knowledge-sharing practices and generational diversity within technology firms, posing the question: How do generational differences influence informal knowledge transfer among software engineers?
López and Ahmed (2021) responded to calls for deeper investigation of ethical leadership in not-for-profit organisations, examining: How do frontline workers perceive and respond to ethical leadership behaviours in the community services sector? Finally, Wilson and Tran (2022) highlighted the limited scholarship on mentoring relationships in higher education from the perspective of the mentor, asking: What meanings do academic mentors attach to their mentoring experiences and how do these meanings shape their practice?
The six studies collectively employed four distinct qualitative methodologies, reflecting the diversity of approaches available to qualitative researchers. Brown and Nguyen (2021) adopted a narrative inquiry approach, which is particularly suited to exploring how individuals construct identity and meaning through storytelling (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). This method enabled the researchers to capture the richly contextualised accounts of leadership that are deeply embedded in Vietnamese cultural traditions.
Okafor et al. (2022) and López and Ahmed (2021) both employed phenomenology, a methodology focused on describing the lived experience of participants as they encounter a particular phenomenon (van Manen, 1990). This approach was appropriate for both studies as they sought to understand subjective experiences — career marginalisation and ethical leadership perceptions respectively — that are difficult to access through other means.
Chen and Park (2020) and Fernandez and Rios (2023) used grounded theory, which aims to generate theory inductively from systematically collected data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Grounded theory was well suited to their inquiries because both studies were exploratory in nature, seeking to build conceptual frameworks around emerging phenomena — virtual belonging and generational knowledge transfer — where pre-existing theories were insufficient.
Wilson and Tran (2022) employed a single case study design, embedding their investigation within one Australian university. This approach allowed for an in-depth, contextualised examination of mentoring practice within a specific institutional setting, thereby generating rich, bounded insights (Yin, 2018).
Data Collection Techniques, Numbers, and Justifications
Across the six studies, semi-structured in-depth interviews were the dominant data collection instrument, supplemented by observations and document analysis in some cases.
Brown and Nguyen (2021) conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with business owners and senior managers across six family enterprises. Semi-structured interviews were justified by the need for flexibility to probe participants' narratives while maintaining thematic consistency (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). Okafor et al. (2022) undertook 12 in-depth interviews with Black female executives, selecting this technique to create a safe, conversational space that could elicit sensitive accounts of discrimination and resilience.
Chen and Park (2020) used a combination of 20 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups (each comprising 5–7 participants) to capture both individual experiences and collective sensemaking of virtual work. The addition of focus groups was justified by the researchers as a means of observing group dynamics and shared discourse around psychological safety — phenomena that are inherently social in nature (Morgan, 1997).
Fernandez and Rios (2023) collected data via 16 semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation of 10 team meetings over a three-month period. The observational component allowed the researchers to triangulate interview data with naturally occurring knowledge-sharing behaviours, strengthening credibility. López and Ahmed (2021) relied on 22 semi-structured interviews with frontline community workers, arguing that interviews best captured individual interpretations of leadership ethics — a subjective and contextually specific construct.
Wilson and Tran (2022) adopted a multi-method case study approach, combining 15 semi-structured interviews with document analysis of institutional mentoring policies and reflective journals provided by participants. This triangulation of methods was justified as a strategy to enhance the depth and trustworthiness of findings within a single-site study (Yin, 2018).
Process of Collecting Data
The six studies demonstrate a consistent and rigorous approach to data collection processes, encompassing access negotiation, participant selection, and data gathering.
In terms of gaining access, Brown and Nguyen (2021) negotiated entry to family businesses through a Vietnamese Chamber of Commerce, while Okafor et al. (2022) partnered with a professional network for women of African descent to recruit participants. Chen and Park (2020) accessed participants through LinkedIn and professional associations, and Fernandez and Rios (2023) gained organisational access through an established relationship between the lead researcher and a technology firm's HR department.
Regarding participant selection, all six studies employed purposive sampling strategies to identify information-rich participants (Patton, 2015). Okafor et al. (2022) additionally used snowball sampling, asking initial participants to refer other eligible Black female executives, which proved effective for accessing a marginalised and hard-to-reach population. Wilson and Tran (2022) selected participants based on a minimum of three years of active mentoring experience within the case study institution.
Interviews were conducted in varied settings according to participant preference and study context. Brown and Nguyen (2021) conducted face-to-face interviews in participants' workplaces in Vietnam, while Chen and Park (2020) conducted all interviews via video conferencing platforms given the remote-work context of their study. Most interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes and were audio-recorded with participant consent. López and Ahmed (2021) supplemented recordings with detailed field notes to capture non-verbal cues and contextual observations.
All six studies followed iterative data collection processes consistent with qualitative methodology. For example, Fernandez and Rios (2023) employed theoretical sampling in their grounded theory study, pausing data collection between rounds of interviews to analyse emerging categories and determine where to focus subsequent data gathering.
Adherence to Ethical Requirements
All six studies demonstrated a strong commitment to ethical research practice. Ethics approval was obtained from the relevant institutional review boards or human research ethics committees prior to data collection in each study. Informed consent was secured from all participants, with explicit clarification of their right to withdraw at any time without consequence.
To protect participant confidentiality, all six studies assigned pseudonyms to individual participants and, where applicable, to organisations. Okafor et al. (2022) took additional precautions given the sensitivity of their subject matter, removing potentially identifying demographic details from quotations and storing all data on encrypted, password-protected devices. Chen and Park (2020) anonymised the names of the companies whose employees participated, replacing them with descriptors such as 'Company A' and 'Company B'.
Fernandez and Rios (2023) addressed a specific ethical challenge arising from their observational component by obtaining consent from all team members present during observed meetings, not only the primary interview participants. Wilson and Tran (2022) sought ongoing consent from participants who submitted reflective journals, checking in with them periodically to confirm their continued willingness to share these personal documents. López and Ahmed (2021) noted that, given the power differentials inherent in community services work, they took care to conduct interviews away from the workplace to minimise the risk of coercion.
This review has examined six qualitative studies situated in the domains of leadership, workplace diversity, employee well-being, and knowledge management. The studies demonstrate the value of qualitative methods — including narrative inquiry, phenomenology, grounded theory, and case study — in generating nuanced, context-sensitive insights that quantitative approaches are ill-equipped to produce. Semi-structured interviews emerged as the predominant data collection technique across the studies, often supplemented by focus groups, observation, and document analysis to achieve methodological triangulation. The studies collectively illustrate rigorous, participant-centred processes of data collection and a consistent commitment to ethical principles including informed consent, confidentiality, and pseudonymisation. Together, they make a compelling case for the continued deployment of qualitative methods in management and organisational research.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Brown, L., & Nguyen, T. (2021). Leadership identity in Vietnamese family enterprises: A narrative inquiry. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(2), 411–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09670-0
Chen, M., & Park, S. (2020). Psychological safety in virtual work environments during COVID-19: A grounded theory study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(6), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000261
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Fernandez, R., & Rios, P. (2023). Generational knowledge transfer in software firms: A grounded theory approach. Information Systems Journal, 33(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12390
López, C., & Ahmed, F. (2021). Ethical leadership perceptions in not-for-profit organisations: A phenomenological study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(4), 712–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020964728
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Okafor, A., Williams, B., & James, C. (2022). Barriers and enablers to career progression for Black female executives in Australia: A phenomenological inquiry. Gender, Work & Organisation, 29(3), 890–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12787
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action-sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press.
Wilson, R., & Tran, H. (2022). Academic mentors' meaning-making in higher education: A single case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1736614
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
