Article Analysis

Looking at the I Quit! article, there are several positive and negative practices influencing the quality of this study. On the whole, the article is well-written and easy to read, aside from a single word omission error (a missing "a"). It follows a fairly well-trod formula of literature review>methodology>analysis>discussion, though the implications have been thrown into the conclusion. I probably would have made that part of the discussion.

Aside from composition, I have some questions about the methodology. Interviewing definitely seems like the right choice for the kind of information this researcher is trying to find. The semi-structured interview is also a good choice, since it directs the interviewee to the necessary topics, but it leaves the process open to emergent topics. The questions themselves, listed in the Appendix, do seem a bit leading. The first set asks the questions "What did you anticipate the job would be like?" and "What was the job really like?" in succession, which automatically reveals an assumption that the participant might have left their job because of a difference in job description and experience. It also flattens the process, in a way, assuming a much more short-term or homogeneous experience. Admittedly, with the way these interviews are conducted, the participant is still free to say, "No, it's more complicated than that." 

I also noticed that the questions were aiming for a much deeper conclusion than the paper asserts. While the main point of the article is that there are specific types of groups that participants told they were quitting and a particular order, the questions seem very concerned with the particular message. The article seems to touch a bit on the tenor of quitting messages given to each group; it does not, however, go into this in depth.

There are also some unstated issues here regarding the participants. When the researcher lists the variety of positions held by respondents, there are only two that could be classified as anything but white collar work. A reason for this could have to do with the sampling method which used participants from the researcher's social circle. I suspect that the process of quitting can vary dramatically from different levels and types of work. It is also likely affected by whether the participant has another job lined up, and if not, how difficult they expect it will be to do so. These expectations can make a great deal of difference when someone is concerned with being able to provide a reference in the future. All of this could be addressed (and absolved) in a Limitations section.

Finally, I think the article could use to build up its rationale. While it does demonstrate that quitting behavior has not been studied enough, it needs to make a more explicit case as to why we need to know when and with whom people communicate when in the process of quitting a job.