Click
here for thetranscript
of the “Evaluate a Scholarly Article” scenario.

In this
project, you will develop scholarly article evaluation competencies that are
foundational evidence-based management skills. You will begin by completing the
reading (or review, depending on your background) of the principles of
scholarly argument construction and deconstruction, as well as critical
thinking. Then, you will practice what you learned in that reading both in
Discussions with colleagues and, finally, in a formal scholarly article
evaluation.

The
timeline for this project is four weeks and the project has eight steps; review
all the steps before starting the project to understand its overall process and
goals. Then, begin with Step 1: “Investigate an Evidence-Based Management
Orientation (Reading).”

When you
submit your project, your work will be evaluated using the competencies listed
below. You can use the list below to self-check your work before submission.

• 1.1 Construct an argument
  using scholar-practitioner communication skills
• 1.2 Write using APA style
  and format.
• 5.3 Appraise a piece of
  collected evidence, such as a scholarly article.

In order to properly orient yourself to the research-based mission of
Lindberg, you begin thinking about how evidence-based management practice
differs from traditional management practice.

You want to be sure you’re on target in terms of how to tackle the
proof-of-concept article and the warm-up project Mark wants you to complete, so
you brush up on your general critical reading and scholarly argument skills.

After you’ve completed these first readings, move on to the next step, in
which you will look at the details of scholarly argument.

You think to yourself, “Scholarly argument is quite complex, but it’s
also exciting.” You decide to dig deeper into developing your argument
construction skills, as well as the Toulmin model of argument, so that you can
make dispassionate arguments for or against anything.

In the next step, you will look at ways to enhance your library research
skills.

You’ve studied up on evidence-based management, critical reading, and
building a scholarly argument.

In the course of orienting yourself to the scholar-practitioner aspect of
Lindberg’s mission, you realize that much of evidence-based management requires
immersion in university library resources and scholarly databases. It has been
a while since you’ve had to navigate those kinds of resources, and
additionally, it seems as though the technology in that area changes daily.

So, you decide to take the time to review doctoral-level library research
skills, part I to ensure that you are moving efficiently and effectively
through not only this task, but tasks that you know will be coming down the
pike at Lindberg.

You’ve sharpened your scholarly argument skills: now, you’re going to test
them by engaging in a dispassionate debate with your colleagues on a Lindberg
internal discussion board. You believe that this will help you not only to
write your evaluation of the proof-of-concept article, but to write a
convincing rationale.

Your goal is to formulate an objective argument without revealing how you
feel about a subject; your feelings are irrelevant to the construction of the
argument. You should welcome the helpful, constructive feedback of your
colleagues and, as per Lindberg’s guidelines, you are going to comment
substantively on at least two of your colleagues’ efforts.

You enter the discussion board to participate in Discussion: Critical
Thinking and Argument.

You know those who participate in the discussion board follow doctoral-level
APA format.

In order to keep yourself on pace, you’ll want to complete this step no
later than Week 2.

After your discussion, move on to the next step, which will develop your
evaluative skills.

Invigorated by your scholarly argument and the discussion it engendered with
your colleagues, you tell Mark that you’re ready for the practice run he
mentioned. “Great!” says Mark. He tells you he’ll choose an article
for you to evaluate in preparation for your work on the proof-of-concept
article.

“In fact,” he says, “while we have some downtime, I’m going
to have all the consultants evaluate the article. It won’t hurt for them to
have a practice run, test their skills. I’ll set up a discussion board so that
you can all share your findings.”

You realize that, before you can actually evaluate the article, you’ll need
to assemble a set of evaluative criteria.

You will first need to ensure that you are well-versed in how to conduct an
evaluation. So, you take the time to investigate how to appraise: critically
judge the quality and trustworthiness of the evidence.

After you have learned about the techniques of evaluation, move on to the
next step, in which you will assemble the evaluative criteria necessary for
this particular project.

Step 6: Assemble a Set of Evaluative Criteria for Quantitative Research
(Reading)

Having reviewed the range of considerations to make when choosing evaluative
criteria, you locate the evaluative criteria practice article. Mark has sent
you the citation of the article, which you’ll find in the library to which you have
access in your doctoral program. The citation is as follows:

Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L.
L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global
virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,
342–365. doi:10.1002/job.1772

You read the article carefully, and then decide which criteria will be the
most relevant to the argument about the article’s quality that you would like
to make.

Next, you’ll evaluate the practice article.

Now that you’ve read the practice article and assembled your evaluation
criteria, you evaluate the article.

Following your evaluation, you log onto the discussion board, Discussion:
Practice Evaluation. Once again, you welcome the helpful, constructive feedback
of your colleagues and, as per guidelines, you are sure to comment
substantively on at least two of your colleagues’ efforts.

You are aware that Linberg follows a standard format to evaluate articles sample project 1 paper even when posting in a discussion
board.

In order to keep yourself on pace, you’ll want to complete this step no
later than Week 3.

After the discussion, you’ll move to the next step, in which you will
evaluate the target article.

Step 8: Evaluate the Target
Article (Reading and Writing)

Feeling
confident now in your ability to conduct the formal evaluation for Shandy, you
let Mark know that you’re ready for the target article. He concurs and sends
you the citation of the proof-of-concept target article:

van
Quaquebeke, N., & Eckloff, T. (2010). Defining respectful leadership: What
it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal
of Business Ethics, 91, 343-358.

You’ll
find the article in the same library database as before.

Mark also
sends youinstructions
for evaluating the proof-of-concept target article. You’ll evaluate the article
based on your chosen criteria and submit a rationale explaining your
evaluation.

You know
that Mark chose you because he knew that you were in a doctoral program, so you
ensure that you review the standards for doctoral-level writing and
doctoral-level APA format so that your written product will meet his
expectations.

You write
your evaluation and submit your scholarly article evaluation.

In order
to keep yourself on pace, you’ll want to complete this step no later than Week
4.

You will
hear back within a week if you need to make any corrections or adjustments.

Before
you submit your assignment, review the competencies below, which your
instructor will use to evaluate your work. A good practice would be to use each
competency as a self-check to confirm you have incorporated all of them in your
work.

• 1.1 Construct an argument
  using scholar-practitioner communication skills
• 1.2 Write using APA style
  and format.
• 5.3 Appraise a piece of
  collected evidence, such as a scholarly article.

Submission for Scholarly
Article