The aim of this paper is to critique the qualitative research article authored by Bastedo (2009), Conflicts, commitments, and cliques in the University: Moral seduction as a threat to trustee independence. Whereas it is not practicable to duplicate the article within this work, it is the critique process itself is being applied with the purpose of demonstrating its practicality and utility to consumers of qualitative research. The questions that will guide the analysis will function as effective benchmarks in understanding the quality and value of the author’s work.
When speaking of qualitative studies, Creswell (2013) stated that within any particular research study, a grouping of features from various methodologies may overlap. Therefore, the research may not essentially be purely a Narrative study, a Phenomenological study, nor a study centered on grounded theory. Rather, a combination of two or more of these methods is often seen within many studies. Creswell does, nevertheless, recommend that still consider each methodology independently, along with their individual merits. This is imperative to bear in mind when analyzing research articles, as components of various methodologies and models can co-exist inside the body of the study as the author attempts to reveal what it is that they are searching for. This does not automatically mean though, that a research study must be labeled as being one kind of research methodology or another, but conversely should simply accept the study for what it is at face value. Within the framework of the research, and in view of the limitations of the environment in which it was done, readers will still have the ability to comprehend its validity and practicality (Tedlock, 2011).
The introduction of the selected article cites several examples of previous studies which have described both broad and specific factors affecting the integrity and independence of University Trustees. The author, Bastedo (2009), describes the...