Introduction
The article by Göçen and Özğan (2017) aimed at identifying the metaphors used by teachers to describe spirituality and examine teachers’ opinions about spirituality. The researchers conducted a qualitative study asking teachers to reply to several essay questions that measured their attitude towards spirituality and the metaphors they use to describe it. The conclusions were drawn from analyzing the works of 40 volunteers and applying phenomenological design. The results revealed many metaphors used by teachers to describe religiousness. Moreover, the research revealed an overall positive attitude to workplace spirituality among teachers, as the participants viewed the matter as crucial for self-identity, organizational identity, and growth.
Main body
The research design is appropriate for the study, as it did not test any hypotheses. Instead, the study aimed at describing attitude towards a phenomenon, which implies that the phenomenological design was applicable in the situation. Another specific strength of the article is that it collected data from 40 participants, which is a relatively large sample for qualitative research. However, the study design is also associated with significant drawbacks. In particular, the reliability of financings and validity of methods is questionable. Therefore, the results of the research should be used with caution.
Conclusion
The study is important for the field of education as it adds to the understanding of how teachers view spirituality. The article helps to understand that teachers value religiousness; therefore, spirituality can be promoted with fear of rejection. The article will be used in my research to confirm that spirituality can promote teachers’ resilience, which can improve retention rates. However, the study examined teachers in Turkey, which implies that the results can be applied to the US environment with caution.
References
Göçen, A., & Özğan, H. (2017). Workplace spirituality: Metaphors and opinions of teachers. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(11), 202-219.
