Question 1. What is at the heart of the quantitative\/qualitative debate?<\/p>\n
I think that the philosophy of the quantitative\/qualitative research is the essence of the debate. In another word, it is vital to understand the “attitude” of the research rather than merely choosing a technical method for the research. According to Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002), the quantitative research is based on positivism, and the qualitative research is based on interpretivism and constructivism. They also suggest that the only objective reality is at the heart of the quantitative research, but there\u00a0are multiple realities based on one\u2019s construction of reality in a qualitative research (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002). Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) explain the differences in a more detailed way. Whether the research problems are calling for explanation or exploration, whether the purposes are specific or general, whether the role of the researcher is objective or subjective, are all associated with the “attitude” of the research\u00a0(Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015).<\/p>\n
Understanding the philosophical position of the\u00a0quantitative\/qualitative research and distinguishing it from the methodology of\u00a0the\u00a0quantitative\/qualitative research is significant for researchers to decide whether to use mixed methods research or not. The prevalence of using mixed methods research would make the researchers overlook the underlying characteristics of the two types. Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) state although integrations of quantitative and qualitative research are common “does not mean that it is always appropriate to do so” (p. 43). The researchers will think of the two types of research as merely technical methods if they are blurred about the\u00a0philosophical distinctions of the two. Correctly understanding the\u00a0philosophies and methodologies of the quantitative and qualitative research will provide a sound basis for conducting a mixed methods research.<\/p>\n
Question 2. How has mixed methods been seen as a remedy for advancing leadership research?<\/p>\n
Before answering this question, I would like to add my personal opinion that if using appropriately, the mixed methods can be seen as remedy for most of the research. Because the mixed methods’ central premise is that “the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2007, p. 5).<\/p>\n
Realizing the potential power of the mixed methods, researchers have conducted many studies to combine the objective and subjective views towards a better understanding of leadership as a complex phenomenon (Stentz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012). First, “researchers can maximize the strengths of each approach while making up the weaknesses of the approaches, develop more complete and complementary understanding, increase validity of results, use one form to build on the results of the other, and\/or examine contextualized understanding, multi-level perspectives, and cultural influences”\u00a0(Stentz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012, p. 1174). For example, Northhouse (2015) mentions that the researchers are able to understand how culture impacts leader effectiveness in a generalizable way through the mixed methods research. Second, the complex nature of leadership research problems calls for the support of mixed methods researches. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods can lead to the most complete analysis in both laboratory and fieldwork contexts\u00a0(Stentz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012). Third, the increasingly published mixed methods leadership researches can help researchers get access to new knowledge about the nature of leadership and to the way of successfully applying this research approach in the field. Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, and Cogliser (2010) suggest that the publishing mixed methods articles are crucial for bringing empirical rigor and facilitating the adoption of this diverse research strategies.<\/p>\n
My question: In your opinion, which characteristic(s) or section(s) is(are) the most meaningful thing(s) in a mixed methods research?<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000\u20132009. The Leadership Quarterly<\/i>, 21<\/i>(6), 922-958. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2010.10.003<\/p>\n
Northhouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership theory and practice.\u00a0<\/em>Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage\u00a0Publications.<\/p>\n Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015).\u00a0Understanding research: A consumer\u2019s guide<\/em>\u00a0(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.<\/p>\n Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity<\/i>, 36<\/i>(1), 43-53. doi: 10.1023\/A:1014301607592<\/p>\n Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices: Corrigendum.\u00a0The Leadership Quarterly<\/i>,\u00a027<\/i>(4), 711. doi:10.1016\/j.leaqua.2015.12.006<\/p>\n