Thus, Creswell (2007) concludes that there are distinct, quantitative research has two major subtypes which experimental and nonexperimental research. Mixed research also has two major subtypes, which mixed method and mixed model research. Qualitative research has five major subtypes: phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and historical research.
Comparison of the methods
On the surface, quantitative research can be easily distinguished from qualitative research in terms of the results. Mixed methods designs can provide pragmatic advantages when exploring complex research questions. The qualitative data provide a deep understanding of survey responses, and statistical analysis can provide detailed assessment of pat terns of responses. However, the analytic process of combining qualitative and survey data by quantifying qualitative data can be time consuming and expensive and thus may lead researchers working under tight budgetary or time constraints to reduce sample sizes or limit the time spent interviewing. Ultimately, these designs seem most appropriate for research that does not require either extensive, deep analysis of qualitative data or multivariate analysis of quantitative data Bryman (2004).
According to Pan (2008), in quantitative research, the results are presented as quantities or numbers (that is, statistics) while in qualitative research the results are trends and themes that are described in words. More important, quantitative researchers emphasize the generalizability of their research. They strive to use large, representative sample from which generalization can be made regarding population parameters. They favor such as questionnaires, attitude scales, and achievements) that have questions with choices, which can be easily administered to large sample.
In contrast, qualitative researchers emphasize the collection of in-depth information obtained from small samples without regard to a population. The in-depth information is frequently collected through extensive one-on-one interview with participants (Pan, 2008).
This distinction between mixed, quantitative, and qualitative has implications for evaluating research, which are explored in the following line. For instance, the researcher topic will be “Impact of Servant Leadership on the Academic workplace related outcome.” The study will examine the influence of servant leadership, at the faculty and staff level, upon student success at Shorter University, Atlanta, Georgia. This quantitative study will be post-positivistic in nature and design. The study will measure the level of servant leadership on the four campuses (Rome, North Atlanta, Gwinnett, and Riverdale) and will seek to determine the level of the relationship, if any, between the staff, adjunct faculty, and servant leadership. Laub (1999) developed the organizational leadership assessment to assess organizational health based on six key areas of effective organizational leadership. Through additional and attachment-related, work consequences such as job satisfaction, by display authenticity, value people, develop people, build community, provide leadership, and share leadership. There are many differences and similarities between qualitative and quantitative research. Although each method uses different criteria for validity and reliability, they demand high ethical standards and treatment for participants. For example, qualitative researchers may use elements of a quantitative approach to test theory, while quantitative researchers may pursue an interest in subjects' interpretations of their experience, which is more typically associated with qualitative research. The critical issue is that the choice of approach and choice of method be appropriate for the purpose of the research. For tobacco control research, like other applied research, this means taking into consideration the users of the research findings, such as policymakers and program designers, and making sure that the research suits their purposes.
Mixed, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods and area of related research topic
Leadership’s approach has a tremendous effect on an organization’s ability to effectively create and execute profit-earning strategies, and success or failure within the business arena is usually measured by a company’s ability to adequately forecast, meet, or exceed key performance indicators. However, Fulmer &ump; Conger (2004) infer that there should be an appreciation for the leadership effectiveness not solely based upon profit and losses, but based more on the situation. While both the quantitative and qualitative methodologies can practically be applied and are viable approaches for understanding the subject of leadership, historically researchers have relied on data to support quantitative methodology for studying the realm of leadership. Expecting that the numbers would simply speak for themselves, researchers have attempted to tie leadership’s effectiveness to organizational results.
In the past, organizations tended to use a quantitative approach to measure the effectiveness of leadership. By gathering historical data, researching case studies, and analyzing statistics regarding the success and failure of a given leadership style or trait, the organization attempts to justify the continuation or implementation of a particular approach to leadership. While this would typically be a viable approach, the reality is that the evolution of business calls for expansion into other ways for evaluating leadership’s affect on organizational results. Therefore, this researcher would suggest that a mixed methodology be used to understand the causality of leadership effectiveness. Research indicates that the conception of one’s reality will ultimately dictate their approach to problem solving.
Applying Methodological Approaches to Leadership Studies
Hopen (2002) states that leadership should understand the interaction between the organization’s operational practices and the results generated by those practices by having specific methodologies for ensuring that decisions made by all members of the organization reflect the appropriate principals and strategies will lead the organization to excellence. To aid in the efforts of effective leadership, researchers may need to alter the methodology used for leadership studies organizational requirements in the 21st century will differ from requirements faced by businesses today.
Consequently, research methods used to study the realm of leadership has been based upon the paradigm of how aspects should be managed. The purpose of future research is not to change how researchers currently approach a subject, but to offer alternatives to make research more effective. The goal is to provide new knowledge and offer alternative views on the approaches to leadership. Bredillet (2006) notes that the necessary conditions supporting a sound translation of research results into practice being a preamble to any relevant research is clarification of our perception and understanding. To aid leaders in their efforts to propel successfully their organizations into the 21st century, researches should note that there might be a need to alter their methodological approach to understand the realm of leadership. Furthermore, past research methods used in leadership studies were based upon the view point that there is a quantifiable link between leadership effectiveness and organizational earnings.
Methodology
The researcher will describe the methodology used to determine if there is a relationship between servant leadership and workplace-related outcome at Shorter University. The study will discuss the population, sample size, instrument, survey administration, variables, data collection procedures, and the data analysis procedures. The research questions and associated hypotheses will be utilized to form the foundation for the methodology chosen in this section. The research questions help drive the study to ensure that the answers fulfill the purpose of the study.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this examining study is to gain a deeper understanding of the level of servant leadership on the four campuses of Shorter University. The researcher will seek to determine the level of the relationship, if any, between the overall staff, adjunct faculty, and servant leadership.
Description of Population
The population for this study will be approximately 560 employees of four campuses at Shorter University, Atlanta, Georgia. The number of employees for each campus will be derived by the survey.
Research Questions and Hypothesis
Question1. Is there a relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction?
Ho1: There is no relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.
Ha1: There is a relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction.
Question2. Is there a relationship between servant leadership and job stress?
Ho2: There is no relationship between servant leadership and job stress.
Ha2: There is a relationship between servant leadership and job stress.
Question3. Is there a relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment?
Ho3: There is no relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment.
Ha3: There is a relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment.
If the researcher chose qualitative instead of quantitative study for the proposed topic, face-to-face interviews will be conducted. Denkin (1994) used qualitative methods to assist his research to search for a deeper truth. The aim or purpose of this research was to study things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. This phenomenon utilized a holistic perspective which preserves the complexities of human behavior.
Research design
The researcher will use quantitative research design because it is an excellent way to finalize results by approving or disapproving various hypothesizes in leadership studies. Quantitative surveys can provide information and explanations that are adequate. Servant leadership will be an independent variable in this study; job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment will be the dependant variables. The researcher will avoid mixed and qualitative methods; by applying a quantitative design to the proposed topic will help the researcher examine the relationship between the dependent variables.
Instrumentation
This study proposes to utilize the self-assessment servant leadership survey instrument proposed by Wong (1998) Self-Assessment Servant Leadership (SASL) as its survey instrument, which prior studies have shown to be both valid and reliable. In addition, the researcher will collect data from the four campuses of Shorter University through staff, faculty and adjunct faculty currently employ, result will indicate that perceptions of organizational-level servant leadership appear to matter most to attitudinal and job satisfaction related. Laub (1999) chose a 14 member Delphi panel of leadership experts, some of whom included Larry Spears, The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership, Jim Kouzes, Co-author of the Leadership Challenge, and Tom Peters, Tom Peters Company. Using several iterations, the Delphi panel produced six characteristics and 18 accompanying attributes of servant leader.
Data Collection
The self-assessment servant leadership instrument (SASL) will be converted from a master copy into SPSS 19 software a commercial server from which data will be analyzed. The researcher will use a conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. Letters requesting permissions to conduct research will be sent to each Dean and Assistant Dean at each campus, as well as the Dean of Students. The letter will specify the research and emphasize that all participation will be selected voluntarily. Also, the individual responses will be anonymous and confidential. Concurrent mixed method data collection strategies will be employed to validate one form of data with the other to transform the data for comparison, or to address different types of questions (Creswell &ump; Plano Clark, 2007).
by
rose_roza (student)
