Understanding Mixed Methods Research Reports

What is at the heart of the quantitative/qualitative debate?

Researcher designs influence how a study is conducted. Most research designs in the field of leadership research, as in many other fields, are traditionally based on a quantitative approach. In this approach, the formulation of research questions, data collection, data analyses, presentation of findings, and others, are largely pre-determined by the researcher.

Quantitative research is well established and helps provide deep insights regarding descriptions, generalizations and trends in a population. Put simply, it’s all about what the statistical numbers are saying. They are neither emotional nor sentimental, they present facts in a dispassionate manner. This suits researchers because it reduces bias to the barest minimum. In my opinion, this is one of the many strengths of this approach.

There are increasing situations wherein findings need to go beyond presenting the numbers and facts alone. (Stenz, Plano-Clark, & Matkin, 2012). For example, in the area of women empowerment, which is one that I am passionate about, if I were to conduct a research aimed at understanding why there is usually a low turnout of participants at programs, I would certainly be interested in what the statistics has to say. In addition, I would like to learn from the personal experiences of participants who regularly attend, and also, those who should attend but were unable to. This means that I would also need a different approach; a qualitative one.

Qualitative research focuses on data gathered by engaging small-sized, information-rich participants via interviews or other approaches that help provide a more in-depth understanding. Interestingly, one of its strengths is that it favors the use of smaller sample size unlike the quantitative research.

I would like to conclude by stating that at the heart of the quantitative/qualitative debate is that each approach on its own, does not give complete insights and findings.

 

How has mixed methods been seen as a remedy for advancing leadership research?

Plano Clark & Creswell (2015, p. 383) explained that mixed methods research includes both quantitative (QN) and qualitative (QL) datasets, statistical and thematic analyses, and, one approach for mixing what was learnt from the QN and QS aspects of the research.

The subject of leadership is considered complex, multi-level, and, socially constructed; this makes it challenging to study. In order “to best understand relevant leadership processes and dynamics, the field of leadership research calls for the application of multiple research approaches.” (Stenz, Plano Clark, & Matkin, 2012, p. 1173).

Mixed methods advance leadership research by providing a multiple research approach using both QN and QL methods. They reveal and tell a lot more by helping researchers create studies that provide much deeper findings and insights. Stenz, Plano Clark, & Matkin (2012, p. 1174) stated that mixed methods advance leadership research by enabling researchers to provide the most complete analysis using experimental studies in both laboratory and fieldwork contexts for purposes of corroboration.

 

Question:

Would the use of mixed methods eventually replace single methods like the qualitative or quantitative researches?

 

References

Plano Clark, V.L, & Creswell, J.W (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Stenz, J.E., Plano Clark, V.L., Matkin, S.G. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2012), 1173-1183. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001

 

Link : https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-7-learning-activities/