Skip to main content

Action Research on Employment Opportunities Template: Action Research Paper Help

Masters students who are looking for action research writing help can use the following template to work on action research papers that focus on employment opportunities in different fields. Students can also ask our experienced action research writers to help them work on the action research projects. We have assisted Masters students from Wilmington University to write their action research papers right from the introduction & methodology, the literature review & proposal, 1st iteration, and the final paper. Here is a sample of the template that we use when working on action research projects focusing on employment opportunities.

Introduction

The introduction is usually one to two pages long; include a brief history/background of the organization or company and does not have a heading. In absents of a company (employment opportunities) you will want to add some background (research) support.

Discuss the circumstances of the situation that you plan to improve.  You may want to discuss, ‘what is wrong or deficient…and why you think making changes will result in improvements. Include why the improvement is of value to you (the stakeholder).

Methodology

This section is usually two (2) to three (3) pages and is a research paper about (what is) Action Research (AR).  In Blackboard, I have listed a variety of resources, please feel free to use the ones provided, you will also need to select at least five (5) professional references to be included in your research.  Discuss AR, history, application uses etc…  Your last paragraph should include a transition describing how AR is an appropriate methodology for the research you are doing.

Literature Review

A literature review is a research paper about your topic. This section is usually three (3) to four (4) pages and should be as detailed and specific as possible.  You will find that specific examples may be difficult to find when doing Action Research, you will need to select at least eight (8) professional references to be included in your research.  In the following few pages I use the proposal…improving the ‘needs assessment’ process in organization XYZ as my project.  Specific data would include comparing other similar organizations that have restructured their ‘needs assessment’ process.   You will most likely find it difficult to locate literature on that specific process, so you will need to generalize the topic.  You may have to focus on the value of need assessments or processes associated with needs assessment, or how to conduct needs assessment.

Proposal

This is where you provide a high-level overview of your project as laid out in iterations.

Do not try to layout your full plan at this point, keep this to one or two paragraphs for each iteration description.  At this point, you should focus on the big picture.

Hypothetical situation…

Let’s say your proposal deals with improving the ‘needs assessment’ process in organization XYZ.  You know the process is weak and requires improvement, but do not know what the weak points are or how to correct them.  You assume you will need the following iterations:

Iteration 1 will be a brainstorming session with representation from each of the three divisions; the discussion will include identifying requirements and communication flow.  At this point you can go into a little more detail but not too much…keep this statement to one or two paragraphs.  .

Iteration 2 will be a follow up session with each (one on one) of the three Division representatives to discuss the outcome of the brainstorming session and a more detailed discussion of their division’s requirements.  Again keep this to one or two paragraphs, I encourage you to focus on the big picture.

Iteration 3 will be a follow-up meeting with the three division representatives to discuss identified common requirements, possible integration of requirements, and discussion of how unique requirements will be managed at the division level.  The researcher will manage common and integrated requirements, and the appropriate division must manage unique requirements.  At the conclusion of this meeting, the division representatives will be tasked with formulating a solution for all unique requirements.

Iteration 4 will require the researcher to analyze the feedback concerning any/all of the unique requirements from each of the divisions.  Then, document a final process to collect ‘needs’ from each of the divisions,

Iteration 5 will be a final meeting to present the new process.  Copies of the new process will be provided to each division.

 Iteration 1 – Brainstorming

Plan

This section is at least 1 page long (usually longer), which describes all the planning that is required to accomplish your first iteration.  THE PLAN HAS TO BE WRITTEN BEFORE ANY ACTION TAKES PLACE!!!

You want to address all the typical questions Who, What, Where, When, and Why and How.   Who is invited, you may want to include qualifications etc…what topic will be discussed and what you intend to achieve…where, when and why is this meeting important.  Moreover, how do you intend on achieving the results.

If you develop an agenda for the meeting, either the agenda or the contents of the agenda would normally be included as part of the plan.

Suggestion: Take extra time in developing a detailed Plan, if you list five items in your plan, and then you carry those five elements into each activity for comments.  For example, in the Plan you say  ‘you plan on completing internet research’, then in the Action – you discuss the internet research, in the Outcomes – you list any specific outcomes or analysis resulting from the internet research, and then in the Reflections -you reflect on what you learned as a result of the internet research.  The plan sets the stage for the entire iteration.

THIS IS THE PLAN!!!

Action

This section is at least one page long.

The action should describe what actually took place at the brainstorming session…Who attended (and who did not) was the agenda followed, were there additional items for discussion added, or did the agenda take the meeting in a different direction.  In some instances, this may be very similar to the meeting minutes.

Observation

This section is at least one page long (or longer)..

Observation are the outcomes and analysis…in this instance, you may have a documented list of all the brainstorming results or latent feedback.  Additionally, you should include any analysis that would occur as a result of the brainstorming.  As with the other sections this is usually at least one page long, when you start adding outcomes documentation this section often increases to several pages.

Reflection

This section is at least one page long.

From my perspective, this is the most important section of your paper…At this point you are looking at what went well, what went not so well, and what actions/processes could be improved.  This is where you critique yourself as well as the processes you are applying.  You also want to identify restrictions, limitations, and risks…For example, if one of the key participant was not available to attend the brainstorming session, you may want to think about how you will meet and gather information from that person (especially if the information is important to the process).

Iteration 2 – Division

Hypothetical example – one on one interview sessions

Iteration 2 will be a little different in this case.  If you remember, iteration 2 is individual meetings (one on one) with the division representatives. So you would probably approach iteration 2 as follows:

The Plan would address the – who, what, where, when, why, and how regarding all three of the divisions.  Since you would be interviewing three different division representatives – You write one plan but have three actions, three observations and possibly three reflections (or one reflection that addresses thoughts about each of the interviews).  So it may look like:

Plan – one page overall description of the division representatives (may want to include specific influence), anticipated questions or dialogue, as well as justification why…not to forget the schedule (where and when)

Action A, Interview with Division representative Ops   One page

Action B, Interview with Division representative Telecom   One page

Action C, Interview with Division representative HR   One page

Observation A – Outcomes of interview with Division Ops Representative, One page

Observation B – Outcomes of interview with Division Telecom Representative, One page

Observation C – Outcomes of interview with Division HR Representative, One page

Reflection – can include your perspective of all three meetings…good bad and how to improve, at least one page but may end up a little longer as a result of having three inputs.

Complete at least four iterations as per your proposal.

You end the research paper with a reflective statement that encompasses your complete experience.  Basically, a final overview of your activities and what you learned during the process.  Please include any specific achievements.

The action research templates differ based on whether the paper should focus on internship experience or a practical problem in an organization. Nevertheless, you can still hire qualified action research writers from Prolific Research Paper Writers so that they can work on your action research project.  We ensure that our clients’ papers are a 100% free of plagiarism and we strictly follow APA 6th Edition.

Apart from action research writing services, we also assist nursing students to write their DNP capstone projects  and nursing assignments. Besides, we help scholars to work on their Masters capstone projects at affordable prices. Kindly contact us if you need any help with your thesis, dissertation, or capstone project.

 

A Termination by Any Other Name: Sample APA Case Study

Looking for experienced case study writers? You have found the right custom writing firm. We have professionals who are ever ready to offer assistance when our clients request for urgent case study help.  You can review one of our pre-written sample case study below.

Introduction

            Jeffrey Deck is an Assistant Federal Security Director attached to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at Raleigh-Durham Airport, North Carolina. Jeffrey is being terminated due to reports he had filed implicating his supervisor Bob Jewel of incompetence and misconduct including a highly publicized security breach at the airport. The reports had attracted the attention of the TSA’s Professional Review Board (PRB) which is responsible for reviewing allegations of misconduct and mismanagement among TSA’s senior officials. After the review, the board decided to terminate both Jeffrey and Bob. Jeffrey was notified about a meeting between him and the board through email three weeks to the meeting.  However, the board acknowledged that Jeffrey was not responsible for the misconduct since Bob, the Security Director, was responsible for providing leadership. TSA gave Jeffrey the option of resigning for ‘personal reasons’ as opposed to summary dismissal without benefits.

TSA representatives denied Jeffrey the opportunity to view the contents of his dismissal letter. The justification for this was that by viewing the contents of the letter, Jeffrey would have been served with a termination notice, prompting TSA to file the termination details including the reason for termination in Jeffrey’s file. Summary dismissal would prevent Jeffrey from being considered for federal employment opportunities in the future. Jeffrey noted that he could contest the removal proposal. However, the board was adamant that a change in management was required and pressured Jeffrey to take the resignation option. On request for three days time to consider the decision and consult with his attorney, Jeff was given an hour to call his attorney. Jeffrey is indirectly being terminated for whistle blowing on his supervisor.  By reporting the mismanagement of the security docket, Jeffrey brought out the incompetence and irresponsibility of top leadership in the docket. The PRB after its review was, therefore, convinced of the need to change the docket’s management personnel.

Body

            Jeffrey reported Bob’s misconduct without first engaging him on the same. This indicates Jeffrey’s inability to establish a proper and honest relationship with his boss. However, by reporting the mismanagement, Jeffrey took the right action since employees have a responsibility of reporting misconduct and mismanagement by their seniors. This responsibility is founded on laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act that encourages corporate officers to fight corporate mismanagement (Watnick, 2007). Nevertheless, Jeffrey overlooked the alternative of first raising the mismanagement concerns with Bob before reporting them. Raising the concerns with Bob, may have elicited a better relationship between Jeffrey and Bob. In doing so, Jeffrey would have used the strategy of substantiality whereby subordinates manage their leaders by offering important information and guidance to the leaders (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010). This would also have served as a wake up call for Bob to consider the impact of his decisions and conduct on other members of his team. This is founded on the concept of centrality since leaders such as Bob are closer to the organizational internal structure and have higher levels of control (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010). It is very unlikely that Jeffrey would be able to establish and maintain strong relationships with the TSA, especially if his attorney were to advise him to sue the TSA for wrongful dismissal. Failure to take the provided option would also jeopardize future relationships with other federal service leaders since he would not be in a position to gain federal employment. However, there are minimal chances that a relationship with the TSA could be maintained if he decides to retire voluntarily.

Jeffrey is a responsible leader who upholds integrity and professionalism. This argument is founded on the fact that he readily reported the misconduct of his boss. Moreover, the conduct and decisions of leaders are informed by their character and ethical values (Chadler, 2009).  His integrity, responsibility and regard for organizational procedures, is evident from his concern over misconduct including the security breach whereby more than 200 bags on a flight to New York were not screened for security purposes. Additionally, rising to the Assistant Federal Security Director is also evidence that Jeffrey effectively managed his professional responsibilities and priorities.

Jeffrey communicates effectively, both verbally and in writing. This is founded on the fact that he was able to effectively relay Bob’s misconduct in the reports he filed. He also demonstrates effective verbal communication during his meeting with the TSA representatives. Lack of communication between Jeffrey and Bob contributed to the problem. The problem is, however, amplified by the PRB board’s decision to review TSA’s management.  Communication is an essential tool for conflict management in organizations (Spaho, 2013). Though, negotiations between Jeffrey and the PRB representatives could resolve the issue, the representatives are very adamant on Jeffrey’s resignation. The board also appears to be in a hurry and negotiations are time consuming (Bornstein & Gilula, 2003).  This position could further amplify the issue especially if Jeffrey were to refuse to resign and sue the TSA over wrongful dismissal.

The issue was not properly resolved. This is majorly attributed to the adamant position of TSA’s representatives who stressed that Jeffrey should either retire or be dismissed summarily. This hindered negotiation efforts between the two parties. TSA representatives especially adopted a threat strategy during the meeting by stressing the consequences of failure to resign voluntarily. A threat tactic is founded on deterrence whereby, during negotiations the side holding a better position presents the weaker side with the consequences of failing to accept the proposed solution (Spaho, 2013). Further, there was no reference to organizational disciplinary and termination procedures.

Conclusion

            The issue would have been handled in a better manner if the parties had referred to disciplinary and termination procedures. Public sector firms should adopt such procedures in order to fairly deal with employee disciplinary and termination issues. This would also eliminate chances of lawsuits from unfairly terminated employees. Management changes should also be carried out in a manner that promotes fairness and justice especially to responsible leaders. Employees who uphold high integrity should be rewarded rather than punished.

Looking for assistance with working on your case study assignment, capstone, thesis, action research, essay, or dissertation? You can now access our case study writing service at very affordable prices. We write our clients’ papers from scratch to ensure that they are original and 100% free of plagiarism.

References

Bornstein, G., & Gilula, Z. (2003). Between-group communication and conflict resolution in assurance and chicken games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(3), 326-339.

Chandler, D. J. (2009). The perfect storm of leader’s unethical behavior: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 70-93.

McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. Y. (2010). Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge and practice for the real world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Spaho, K. (2013). Organizational communication and conflict management. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues18(1), 103-118.

Watnick, V. (2007). Whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: A primer and a critique. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law12(5), 831-879.

 

 

Get 10% Off Today! Discount Code: PRPW10

Affordabale priced research paper writing service