LDRS591, Unit 7, Activity 7.2

Melchar and Bosco’s (2010) study is evaluated through Plano-Clark and Creswell’s (2015) seven criteria for evaluating the use of mixed methods in a research report (p. 405).

1. The rationale for needing mixed methods research is appropriate and justified (0/3) – Melchar & Bosco (2010) do not explicitly articulate why a mixed method was chosen instead of a quantitative or qualitative study alone. The study states “qualitative interviews were conducted a priori in order to determine whether there were main themes that reflected the senior leader’s “servant leader” orientation” (Melchar & Bosco, 2010, p. 80), but no justification for the quantitative surveys were given.
2. The choice of the mixed methods design is appropriate and justified (1/3) – The sequential exploratory mixed methods design was chosen for this study. As mentioned, Melchar & Bosco (2010) collected qualitative data from the senior leaders first to analyze whether the leaders reflected the servant leader (SL) qualities (p. 80). To understand the influence of senior leaders’ use of SL, it was crucial to interview the senior leaders. The timing of the study and the unequal priority of the quantitative study is justified, but once again, there is no explicit reasoning from the researchers of their specific design. Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) state, “At a minimum, all mixed methods studies should “mix” the quantitative and qualitative components in the final conclusion section” (p. 389); the study fails to do this.
3. The quantitative methods are of good quality based on the standards of quantitative research (1/3) – The study only received 59 respondents to their survey that consisted of 91% male sample group, when 350+ individuals are expected for a survey (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 238). Melchar & Bosco (2010) provided  coefficient alphas (p. 79) and an ANOVA (p. 80) to enhance the reliability, but this does not justify the small sample. No example of the survey or its questions were included.
4. The qualitative methods are of good quality based on the standards of qualitative research (2/3) – The qualitative methods incorporated three interviews that provided purposeful information to identify main themes, and a few examples of the open-ended questions were provided. More information on the qualitative process is needed.
5. The quantitative and qualitative components of the study are meaningfully mixed (1/3) – While the need to interview the senior leaders is explained, the study does not further interpret or mix the interview results with the quantitative survey aspect in the discussion or results. The interview is treated like a test of whether the leader practices SL, and is then discarded for the overall results.
6. The study used a rigorous application of mixed methods research to address the purpose (1/3) – Addressing the question of whether the incorporation of servant leadership at the senior levels influences a culture of servant leadership at lower levels of management (Melchar & Bosco, 2010, p. 77), the use of interviews and surveys is logical, but the lack of analysis and mixing of the two elements make it seem unnecessary. Either incorporating the interview process or solely relying on surveys would have worked.
7. The use of mixed methods produced a good understanding of the research purpose (1/3) – I am not convinced the use of mixed methods produced more complete, valid, or in-depth answers to the study’s research questions. The quantitative and qualitative aspects did not enhance one another.

References

Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving High Organization Performance through Servant Leadership. Journal Of Business Inquiry: Research, Education & Application, 9(1), 74-88.

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