To begin with, there is a typo in the abstract. It is missing an 'of' in the first sentence.
I don't see a thesis statement on the first or second page. I'm under the impression that it is far better to have a thesis early in the paper, even if it is only previewed and is given nuance later. I realized that the only reason I know what the paper is arguing is because I read the abstract first.
By page 10, I have noticed several typos (~5).
As I wrote last time, I feel like the participant pool is not diverse enough to merit the construct-building this paper attempts. They could really benefit from adding participants from multiple levels/socioeconomic statuses-- after all, employment (and quitting) can mean different things to different people, and this would influence the way that one chooses to quit.
The author is not very clear about what they mean when they say that they "employed two forms of verification, member-checking and thick, rich description." While I agree with the former, I'm confused by the latter. Do they mean that they wrote thick description about the interviews in order to clarify their thoughts or do they consider the information sourced from participants to be such thick description that it is a form of verification?
The three stages that the author suggests are certainly intuitive, but it seems to only conceptualize one kind of quitting: a generally amicable, planned action. They write about instances of individuals who do not exactly follow the three stages, but the information goes nowhere and is not incorporated into the model in any way. I suppose this provides falsifiability?
As I wrote last time, there seems to be quite a few questions that are in the interview guide, but not addressed in the paper. It makes me think that they might have been looking for something else, or at least something more concrete, and then tried to shoehorn disparate results into the paper.
By page 10, I have noticed several typos (~5).
As I wrote last time, I feel like the participant pool is not diverse enough to merit the construct-building this paper attempts. They could really benefit from adding participants from multiple levels/socioeconomic statuses-- after all, employment (and quitting) can mean different things to different people, and this would influence the way that one chooses to quit.
The author is not very clear about what they mean when they say that they "employed two forms of verification, member-checking and thick, rich description." While I agree with the former, I'm confused by the latter. Do they mean that they wrote thick description about the interviews in order to clarify their thoughts or do they consider the information sourced from participants to be such thick description that it is a form of verification?
The three stages that the author suggests are certainly intuitive, but it seems to only conceptualize one kind of quitting: a generally amicable, planned action. They write about instances of individuals who do not exactly follow the three stages, but the information goes nowhere and is not incorporated into the model in any way. I suppose this provides falsifiability?
As I wrote last time, there seems to be quite a few questions that are in the interview guide, but not addressed in the paper. It makes me think that they might have been looking for something else, or at least something more concrete, and then tried to shoehorn disparate results into the paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment