1、Brief Discussion of Lucass and Martins ReportsModule: Research MethodName: Sichen JuStudent Number: 20043176Tutor: Ian ElsmorecontentIntroduction2Main Body3Conclusion7Reference.9IntroductionThe purpose of this essay is to critically review two academic reports which both focus on the question that w

2、hether and why hospitality industry employees are satisfied with their jobs. Lucas (2002) "Fragments of HRM in hospitality? Evidence from the 1998 workplace employee relations survey", chose the managers and employees from hotels, restaurants, bars, holiday camps and canteens to analyze th

3、e data and got the conclusion that hospitality industry employees are more satisfied with their career than employees from other industries. Martin (2004) wrote her report, which named as 'Whos kicking whom? Employees orientations to work. On behalf of Lucas's research, working out why hospi

4、tality industry employees get a rather high level of satisfactory to their jobs. They get different research results because of their different research methods and purposes. The essay will commence with an overview of the two reports, followed by the reason of their getting different results and th

5、e strength and weakness of related methodology. Strong and effective literature review leads the author toward a certain specific research point. In this essay, the content will be the summary of the argument presented in the two articles, comparison of the points of view raised by the two authors a

6、nd contraction to the different methodological approaches taken by the authors. A summary is an important part to enrich the information or sources. But a synthesis means organizing or rewrote the information. And at last some personal view will be raised and supported by the literature review. Diff

7、erent research methods are used to prove the opinions. In the next part, the analysis of the two related paper will be brought forward and discussed in different research methods. Main BodyLucas (2002) in her report named "Fragments of HRM in hospitality? Evidence from the 1998 workplace employ

8、ee relations survey", interviewed the managers hiring at least 10 employees from hotels,restaurants,bars,holiday camps and canteens around UK and also 1,100 samples of employees to collect the data. She got the conclusion that hospitality industry employees are more satisfied with their career

9、than employees from other industries. She used quantitative method to get the result that although HI employees are motivated more strictly than AIS employees; they have a rather high level of job satisfactory. Martin (2004) wrote her report, which named as 'Whos kicking whom? Employees orientat

10、ions to work', on the basis of Lucass work. The objective of this paper is to analysis and answer the question Lucas rose in her report. That is, how HI employees are managed or organized in their workplaces and why they feel good about their jobs. Both of the two reports started with literature

11、 review. Literature review is information in a certain particular area put together within a certain period of time. (Hart, 2001) Veal (2006) declare that it is important to use the literature review to set up the research platform, because that it dedicates the meaning of the quotation as well as t

12、hat it is the foundation of comparison. Literature review is a part of research report. In a research report, literature review is used as a foundation and base for the author's point of view. Literature review is also the background for a research report's survey. After the literature revie

13、w section, the methodology section could be carried out, because researchers got their research questions.Lucas (2002) demonstrated that the rate of hospitality industry employees' satisfactory is higher than those of all other industries and services (AIS) employees. The data was collected from

14、 managers and employees who were working in different hospitality workplaces so that to get information and to support the point of view. Those managers who employed at least 10 employees from 160 different hospitality workplaces were interviewed; meanwhile, 1,100 employees were questioned. Opening

15、by illustrating "What is HRM?”, the article then talks about the analysis and evaluation of fragments of HRM found in HI and AIS workplaces. Finally, it leads to a conclusion that whether HRM in the HI is poor in comparison with HRM in Britain. However, Martin (2004) used different methodology

16、and got completely contrary research result. Martin raised a group of case studies of hospitality employees coming from four different independent workplaces. This research focuses on the personality of employment in these firms from a social action perspective. Martin considered that the methodolog

17、ical constraints used in the previous studies had failed to show the different employment relationships in hospitality industry, because of the lack of attention paid to individual influences and the too much attention to management and control in workplaces while analyzing the labor process. And th

18、en, Martin provided another method to prove her point of view. One research question that Do HI employees enjoy being kicked? And if so why?' is asked and analysed.Talking about solving the research question, certain methodologies are applied to investigate the authors' point of view. In the

19、 Lucass research, literature review is used. While in the Martin's paper, it presents a collective case study of hospitality employees across four small independent restaurants. Thus, case study and focus group are used in the paper. Due to the different methodologies are involved in the two pap

20、ers, Lucas proved her argument. However, Martin received evidence to disagree with Lucas. Lucas used lots of data and definition to support her perspectives. This makes her report persuasive. However, it is a question that whether those quoted by her is correct and reliable. Around the same research

21、 question, different methodologies could lead to contrast result. And then, analyze the reasons why the situation will occur in those two papers and identify the strength and weakness of each method.In Lucass paper, quantitative method of survey is being used to get the data. Quantitative research i

22、s the methodical experimental investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their causal relationships. The process of it is vital to quantitative research because it provides the fundition between experimental observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships. (Cres

23、well, 1994) Quantitative research is exceptionally helpful to further testify the factors that can impact people's attitude and even can measure the degrees of influence. Survey is a research method in which information gets together from a sample by using a questionnaire. Questionnaire is divid

24、ed into three basic types, closed-ended, open-ended or combination of both. (Jack, 1983) Designing a questionnaire means to determine the list of questions and design the exact format of the printed or written questionnaire is an essential aspect of the development of a survey research design. (Zikm

25、und, 2000, p60) In Martins paper, qualitative method of interview and case study are used to collecting and analyzing data. Qualitative research is a form of social inquiry that focuses on the way people interpret and make sense of their experiences and the world in which they live. Researchers use

26、qualitative approaches to explore the behavior, perspectives and experiences of the people they study. The basis of qualitative research lies in the interpretive approach to social reality. (Holloway, 1997) The major strength of interview is that the researcher can get information directly from the

27、interviewees speech. In Lucass report, survey and questionnaire are the main research methods. Questionnaire is included in survey and it has advantages over some other survey methods. Questionnaire does not need so much effort from the questioners and often offers standardized answers to questioner

28、s so that it is simple to answer. (Saunders, Lewis &Thornhill, 2007) Questionnaire costs little money and time. It is convenient for the researchers and also the people who will do the questionnaire. (Jensen, 2002) It is easy to analyze the result of the questionnaire because the answers are set

29、 in advance and mainly statistical data. On the other hand, the questionnaire is not very reliable. The questions are mainly very simple and objective ones. Sometimes they even leave blank to the final open-ended questions. (Baxter& Babbie, 2004) Case study is the main method of Martins report.

30、Case study research is useful for an in-depth study of problems to understand processes or situations in context. (Gilgun, 1994) Great amounts of information can be learned in this way. Case study research may have more than one participant. Case study focuses on a single case and its an in-depth an

31、alysis of that case. (Graziano & Raulin, 1993) The critical research consumer concerns two aspects when judging the adequacy of a case study. The first is that each case must be complete, and the second is that the critical research consumer should expect that the description of the case be logi

32、cal and easy to follow. (Martella, 1999)Conclusion This essay talks about the comparison of two given reports as well as the features of research methods which show the roles of the research process. Via theories of research methods, contents of literature review and methodology have been shown. Wha

33、ts more, the strengths and weakness of each method are also analyzed. It is clear that literature review can directly lead the research questions, and that must influence the methods which should chosen. After that methodologies as well as methods have the impact on validity and reliability of the r

34、esearch. Besides, two reports of research working satisfaction among hospitality industry employees indicated completely contrary result, only because of different methodology. It taught a truth that chose a correct methodology is the key factor to obtain objective and real result. ReferenceBaxter L

35、.A. & Babbie E. (2004) The Basics of Communication Research, Thomson Wadsworth, United KingdomCreswell, J.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approach, Thousand Oaks: SageGilgun, J. F. (1994) A case for case studies in social work research, Social Work, vol. 39, pp. 371-380Graziano, A. M. & Raulin, M. L. (1993) Research Methods: A process of inquiry, 2nd ed., New York, HarperCollinsHart, C. (2001) Doing a Literature Search: A Comprehensive Guide for the Social Sciences, London: SageHolloway, I. (1997)