The following is my evaluation of the data analysis and findings in the study by Melchar & Bosco (2010). I performed the evaluation by applying criteria provided by Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015, p. 405).

 

What was the purpose of the study?

As stated in the abstract, the study sought to investigate “whether a servant leader can develop a corporate culture that attracts or develops other servant leaders.” (Melchar & Bosco, 2017, p. 74).

Was the rationale for needing mixed methods research appropriate and justified?

Rating – 3/3

Absolutely! The authors stated that studies must incorporate theoretical development and adequate measurement in order for progress to be made in the area of servant leadership (SL) research. (p. 76). They provided literature from two different sources to support their claim. (Sendjaya, 2003; Mayer et al., 2008).

 

 

The choice of the mixed method design was appropriate and justified

Rating – 3/3

The authors stated that: “because the interviews revealed behaviors and attitudes consistent with servant leadership, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the distribution of the Servant Leader Questionnaire (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006)”. (p. 80). This shows that the study was based on a sequential exploratory mixed method design; the survey was needed to generalize the qualitative findings derived from the interviews. The timing was sequential and the priority was qualitative. Lastly, the mixing showed a connection from qualitative findings to quantitative data collection.

 

The quantitative methods were of good quality based on the standards of quantitative research

Rating – 2/3

High quality instrument with sufficient internal reliability was used to gather data. (p. 79). Sampling strategy was appropriate and data was gathered using ethical procedures. (p. 81). Also, good hypothesis testing procedures were used, and, descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated. (pp. 79-83). Results included sufficient information.

However, the researchers noted that the sample size was small, hence, results may not be generalizable to a larger population. (p. 85).

 

The qualitative methods were of good quality based on the standards of qualitative research

Rating – 2/3

The qualitative component was based on a small, information-rich sample comprising three leaders, each from a different company. The responses of the respondents were recorded, and interpreted. Six common themes were developed, rated, compared, and found to be supported by servant leader traits from three different literature. (p. 80). There was insufficient information to accurately determine if or how the qualitative findings were validated.

 

The qualitative and quantitative components were meaningfully mixed

Rating – 3/3

Both components were explicitly connected; the mixing showed a connection from qualitative findings to quantitative data collection. (p. 80). This was consistent with the mixed method research design. Also, qualitative, quantitative and mixed result types were discussed in the study. (p. 84).

 

The study used a rigorous application of mixed methods research to address the study purpose

Rating – 3/3

Absolutely! A sequential exploratory mixed method design is a good fit for a study that sought to generalize qualitative findings.

 

The use of mixed methods produced a good understanding of the research purpose

Rating – 2/3

The findings provided valid and in-depth answers to the study questions. In my opinion, these findings were not complete because of the low sample size for the quantitative study.

 

References

Melchar, D.E. & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 9(1), 74-88.

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

 

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