MRivera SOC341 Article Review

7/27/2019 MRivera SOC341 Article Review

1/7

Running head: 1ST

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 1

Manuel Rivera

1st

Article AnalysisSOC341 Research in Social Sciences

Siena Heights University6/8/2013


2/7

1ST ARTICLE ANALYSIS 2

Abstract

This paper will evaluate The Story of Work: A Narrative Analysis of Workplace

Emotion (2005) by Connie J. Boudens of The University of Michigan and its components

against the evaluation checklist written by Fred Pyrczak, California State University, in his book

Evaluating Research in Academic Journals: A Practical Guide to Realistic Evaluation. The

article, hereto identified as The Story, is attempting to analyze 452 narratives, from two

previously published works, to answer two questions on whether a narrative analysis is useful

and accessible means of examining the experience of emotion in organizations, (Boudens,

2005).

ANALYSIS Title and Subtitle

Reviewing the title Boudens proposes, The Story, suggests an analysis of emotions in

the workplace by using narration as an evaluative tool. Though at first glance, the title seems

efficient to tell the consumer what the article is about; the title offers a methodology of narrative

analysis used by Boudens. It also alludes to the article variables; workers. With this information,

some would say that the title and subtitle does a good job informing us as to the article content.

However, I disagree with this. Using Pyrczaks evaluative checklist (2008), the title falls very

short of sufficiently informing the reader of its content.

First, Pyrczak asks Does the title identify the types of individuals who participated,

(2008, pg 151)? The article does not make mention of actual participants for the study. One can

infer that it would concentrate on workers, but what kind? The following list are reasons why the

title and subtitle are inefficient in identifying participants:

Title neglects to mention any participants for study


3/7


Inferring workers as participants because of the verbiage Workplace Emotion in thesubtitle is negligible; to infer this information does not give any clarification as to what

people are used as participants. Are the participants from a certain age group or racial

classification? What about the gender breakdown?

Title and subtitle does not tell consumer what type of workplace; the workplace is animportant part of this study as not all workplaces are similar. The article mentions in the

abstract (my next analysis in this paper) and that it will look at prototypical work

situations. However, not every workplace would handle prototypical situations in the

same manner. For example, an emotional response that anger displays of loud voice cues

and assertive body language typically would not be tolerated in an office workplace. This

type of behavior would more than likely land a person in the Human Resources office

with possible discipline actions. Most people would say that this behavior is not

allowable in any workplace. Whereas, if this behavior occurred by a corrections officer in

a prison, most people would agree that it is imperative to the safety and control of the

environment to exhibit this behavior.

Title and subtitle do not both provide important information about the report (Pyrczak,2008, pg 151). Though the subtitle does mention the methodology of the narrative

analysis and a very weak variable of workplace emotions of the inferred workers, the title

is of no real value to the article. It represents the authors attempt to make a clever title

that is wordplay on the subtitles narrative (Story) and work (Workplace).

CONCLUSION Title & Subtitle

Though the aforementioned reasons for an ineffective title and subtitle were presented,

using Pyrczaks checklist of evaluation questions, the title and subtitle scored better than the


4/7


information than I presented. With this, some would say that it is effective. However, an

effective evaluation should not simply look at the quantitative results, but should also look at the

qualitative results. With the reasons I have listed above, I have determined that the title and

subtitle are not effective, nor sufficient for a consumer.

ANALYSIS Abstract

An abstract is a summary of research report that appears below its title. Like the title, it

helps consumers of research identify articles of interest. This function of abstracts is so important

that the major computerized databases in the social and behavioral sciences provide abstracts as

well as the titles of the articles they index (Pyrczak, 2008, pg 23).

The Storys abstract starts off with a very strong first sentence, This paper argues that

work-related emotion is best accessed using indirect means, including figures of speech and

narrative, (Boudens, 2005). With the first sentence, it tells us of the articles purpose and

suggests the possible methodology. This suggestion of the methodology is further strengthened

with the next sentence of the abstract by specifically telling us that the methodology is that of

narrative analysis, which we first informed about in the subtitle; An analysis of 452 narratives

drawn from previously published works The abstract also tells the consumer what the article

is trying to resolve or address; addressing two research questions: Where is the emotion in

work? and What is the emotion in work, (Boudens, 2005)? Boudens continues to explain the

methodology by letting the consumer know how each question will be answered; a series of

prototypical work situations are identified, all of which are heavily charged with

emotionsclusters of emotion associate with each prototypical situation are identified,

(Boudens, 2005).


5/7


The abstract continues to prove sufficient with alluding to findings of the article; An

image of the vital dynamics of organizational life is presented on these results (Boudens,

2005).

CONCLUSION Abstract

Overall, the abstract does check off most of the evaluative questions in Pyrczaks guide.

However, reviewing the title, subtitle, and abstract as a whole, they do not give a sufficient

enough picture for the consumer to make a well-informed decision as to whether this article will

be beneficial to their own research. For example, the abstract does not mention, as part of its

methodology, how the narratives were recorded and interpreted. Though not mentioned as part of

Pyrczaks checklist, I have concerns whether a consumer would even review The Story with

such lackluster and inefficient opening information. For the aforementioned reasons, I have

concluded that the abstract does not do a valid job in supporting the content of the article.

ANALYSIS Introduction

The article starts with the introduction using a narrative about workplace emotions;

appropriately used considering this is the topic of the research within the article. Though this is a

nice beginning, it lacks specificity to the identification of the research problem. Boudens

opening narrative speaks about the marriage between the mechanical descriptions of a job with

the then presented emotional connection to said mechanical process of a job; interviewee

describes her job in two very different ways. Initially, she details the mechanical aspectsThis

contrasts sharply with the final paragraph, where the interviewee talks about how she responds to

her work(her) interaction with the task, makes her feel. While the first description might be

useful as a guide to writing a technical document about the mechanics of the job, the second

description provides an intimate insight into how the jobfeels, in both its task-related and social


6/7


aspects. From this second type of account, wehave access to a unique view of the world of

work, (Boudens, 2005). This description is used by Boudens to try and identify the specific

problem of the research presented. However, even with this exhaustive explanation of the article,

we are not specifically informed of any problem, let alone any resolution that the author may

present. The introduction reads as though the authors intent as merely presenting information or

means of accessinga method for examining workplace narratives, (Boudens, 2005).

CONCLUSION Introduction

Though the authors introduction does a good job at presenting what the article will

potentially cover, i.e., figurative language and the expressions of emotion, methods for

examining workplace narratives, and an analysis of a large group of workplace narratives, the

lack of a specified problem, importance of the problem area, and any underlying theories that

could described of emotions in the workplace, leads me to conclude that Boudens introduction

is insufficient in informing the consumer about why or why not emotions in the workplace is

good or badif that is even what Boudens is trying to prove.

CONCLUSION Paper

Upon evaluation of the aforementioned sections of article, The Story of Work: A

Narrative Analysis of Workplace Emotion by Connie J. Boudens (2005), I have determined that

the article inefficiently explains in detail what the research variables, methodology, and problem

areas are and thus is not sufficient for use by consumers if viewed within a computerized

database at a glance.


7/7


References

Boudens, C. (2005). The story of work: A narrative analysis of workplace emotion. (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Michigan).

Pyrczak, F. (2008).Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic

evaluation. (4th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Documents

MRivera SOC341 Article Review