Critique of Two Journal Articles

Critique of Two Journal Articles

Chen Y, Gupta A, Hoshower L. (2006) Factors That Motivate Business Faculty to Conduct Research: An Expectancy Theory Analysis. Journal of Education for Business. 81, 4, pp. 179-189

Geiger M, Cooper E, Hussain I, O'Connell B, et al. (1998) Cross-cultural comparisons: Using expectancy theory to assess student motivation: An international replication. Accounting Education. 13, 1, pp 139-157

Expectancy theory is one of the most widely used motivation theory. It is first proposed by Victor Vroom Yale School of Management in 1964. This theory is well supported by many evidence, and believe that the degree how people would act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome, and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual.(Robbins et al. 2008) Two research-based articles which used expectancy theory to examine the factors impact target object in different circumstances are compared in this critique article.

These two articles are both scholarly and on the base of research in universities from U.S. And they also have similar aims toward different objects. The aim of Chen Y et al (2006) article is to examine key factors that motivate members of business faculty to increase productivity of research by applying expectancy theory. To reach this aim, authors investigated 10 business schools in U.S, test several propositions. The primary aim of Geiger M et al (1998) article is to use expectancy theory to assess motivation of accounting student in non-U.S. cultures. This article also tests expectancy theory if it is effective in multinational setting. This is because two studies which have similar aim had been conducted before this article in the United States. Both articles clearly expressed their content though their articles’ titles. In addition, this article tested whether Hofstede’s five culture indices related to expectancy theory or not. Hence, Geiger et al (1998) article clearly have broader horizon of subject. And by skimming the titles, reader could easily catch the main purposes within these two articles.

Both articles introduced the background of their studies, and why authors chose these subjects. Chen Y et al (2006) article explained that research productivity is very important to a academic institution or an individual in faculty. Then authors classified prior studies at the yield into two major streams and pointed out that few studies have been conducted in examining factors impact research productivity based on empirical evidence. Next, after reviewing former literatures related to this subject, authors considered expectancy theory is an appropriate theory to conduct this research. Geiger M et al (1998) article also did similar procedure to former. But according to authors’ review, this article is the only one that examined accounting students’ motivation in cross-cultural context based on empirical application. Meanwhile, Geiger M et al (1998) article introduced theory background more detailed, illustrated two components of expectancy theory, which are valence model and force model. Thus, reader who with litter background knowledge could also understand this study well. Relatively, literature review was concise and only for the purpose of stating the uniqueness of this study.

Both articles have moderate size of samples. Chen Y et al (2006) article received 320 useable responded questionnaires out of 670 business faculty members. Meanwhile, Geiger et al (1998) article had 637 students in data collection. But the latter doesn’t mention the number of response rate. That makes us can only presume that every response is available. Chen Y et al (2006) article only sampled universities in mid-western of United States. It makes sample not very convincing. Similarly, Geiger et al (1998) article was trying to examine the subject in non-U.S. setting. However, there was no European, African, or Latin American country included in sample. This could be considered as a limitation of representative. The former collected the data via a mail survey with a detailed questionnaire, which is relatively common but solid method for data collection. Whereas Geiger et al (1998) article gathered data from the voluntary contact of international accounting instructors. This type of method made researchers hard to unify the standard of sample and stabilize the source of data. Also, institutions that have voluntary contact with authors usually have good relationship with authors’ institution; hence, lack of universality might be another limitation which was acknowledged by authors. However, same reason cause Geiger et al could gather much more specific than normal method can. Such as authors adjusted academic grades in different countries to the same standard, so that comparison would be executable.

Mathematics and statistics approaches have been used in these two articles for examining the hypotheses. At the point, the number of various approaches of Geiger et al (1998) article is larger than Chen Y et al (2006) article’s markedly. Geiger et al used Chi-square test to manifest the propositions across different countries. Unbalanced ANOVAs was run for examining the weights of three second-level outcomes. Within-person t-test was run to determine whether valence is attached more weight than expectancy by individuals. Besides these approaches above, Scheffe’s multiple comparison test, binomial test, and paired-samples t-test, etc. are employed by authors as well. The usage of these approaches improved article’s technicality, and made article more convincing academically. Relatively, Chen Y et al (2006) article only used a linear regression model to determine the effect of the demographic