1. Read the question.
2. Identify how many parts there are within each question.
3. Answer each part.
4. Start with an introduction to the comp answer and end with a summary/conclusion. In the middle, talk about each section, spending more time in the areas that ask you to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, apply and the like. do not hang in the definition, describe, and review zones…don\’t do that.
5 Every paragraph should have at least one citation.
BELOW IS A MOCK QUESTION,WITH A MOCK ANSWER TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA AS TO WHAT
I NEED.THE ORINGINAL QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED.I NEED 17 PAGES
AND 15 REFENCES ON A REFERENCE PAGE OR PAGES.THE REFERNENCE PAGE IS
SEPARATE FROM THE 17 PAGES REQUESTED.REMEMBER,THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE SO WE
MOCK QUESTION 1
Qualitative and quantitative research designs are the two main methods
used by social scientists today. They are used with a variety of research
methods and have been a common thread in case studies. Compare and contrast
elements of qualitative and quantitative research methods in terms of
descriptive and case study designs. What qualitative and quantitative
analyses would be useful in interpreting and analyzing the results of a
MOCK :Comprehensive Written Responses
The basic purpose of research is discovery. The early formation of
faculties and scientists gathering under the auspices of peer reviewing
bodies of the Renaissance, catalyzed what we view today as legitimate
scientific research through quantitative methods (Creswell, 2003). Later,
questions arising from complex human interactions and the failure of
statistically accurate models would catalyze legitimacy for other research
methods, including qualitative observation and discovery (Trochim, 2001).
While it has taken considerable time for scholars to recognize the equal
validity and reliability of qualitative and mixed method research designs,
social science studies conducted in the area of organizational behavior,
leadership, and ethics, the subjects of the authorÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s research, have
successfully utilized all three approaches for several decades.
After an introduction to the evolution of qualitative and quantitative
research processes, this paper compares and contrasts quantitative and
qualitative approaches to descriptive and case method based,
A Brief History of Research Methods
Traditional research methodologies in western science were based more on
rediscovering information arriving from Arab cultural centers conquered
during the Crusades, than creating anything new (Burke, 1985). Revealed in
these ancient texts however, were the debates on research methodology
advanced by Aristotle. His theories on study and method relied on
repeatable observation of the interaction between the organic and
inorganic. For nascent, western science, the discoveries, observations and
questions contained in AristotleÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s and other Greek
philosopher/scientistÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s works were a watershed for methodology (Capra,
Nascent forms of scientifically-based research took back seat to divine
knowledge and inferred truth. While important to research design and
method, the change to a helio-centric universe based on Galilean scientific
rationality proved profound. The scientific approach to knowledge catalyzed
macro-level changes in western culture, religion, philosophy, and
eventually, in global society (Spruill, Kennedy, & Kaplan, 2001).
The advent of the modern, scientific era created a seminal shift in the
methods for proving all fundamental theories and perceptions of the
Development and Impact of Post-Modern Research Methodologies
Based on the scientific method advanced from the fifteenth through the
early twentieth century, prominent views on researching were rational-model
based. The quantitative absolute to researching all phenomena carried
through to the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s (Vancouver, 1996).
And, indeed this quantitative-based paradigm led innumerable social and
economic organizations developing in parallel with the mechanistic
efficiencies of scientific discovery, to look increasingly to statistics
and mathematics to understand all characteristics of the human and natural
Questioning the Paradigms of Rationality
Despite their widespread acceptance, and over three and one-half
centuries of tradition, western scientific rationality and quantitative
research methods did not always lead to accurate solutions. By the late
1800s fundamental questions were being asked across a myriad of scientific
disciplines about the validity and objectivity of purely rational,
quantifiable research paradigms (Capra, 1983).
Late nineteenth century scientific advances furthered questions about the
validity of scientific rationalism in modeling the universe. In the arena
of human and social development, increasingly complex questions from a
burgeoning workforce requiring organizational and managerial structure
could not be thoroughly answered by quantitative-based research. TaylorÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s
(1911) work on motivation and control through time-motion studies and
scientific management epitomize this era and the ultimate failure of the
scientific paradigm to be all-predictive.
The remainder of this section will compare and contrast these methods,
providing guidance for their application to phenomenological research.
Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses and Their Cultures
Qualitative research differs from quantitative in a number of ways. In
quantitative research, the researcher disassociates from the subject(s) of
the research (Winter, 2000). Dispassionate observation and neutral
categorization of the data are imperative to validity in quantitative
research. Reasonable interpretation of collected data relies on these
ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œthird-partyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â frameworks, and methodology is constructed to gather data
with minimized interactions of the researcher.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, presupposes that no researcher
can create entirely dispassionate methods of observation, interpretation
and analyses. As Winter (2000, p. 7) notes, validity in quantitative
research relies on a
culmination of empirical conceptions: universal laws, evidence,
objectivity, truth, actuality, deduction, reason, fact and mathematical
dataÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦.Qualitative research, arising out of the post-positivist rejection
of a single static or objective truth, has concerned itself with the
meanings and personal experience of individuals, groups and sub-cultures.
Reality in qualitative research is concerned with the negotiation of
ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“truthsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ through a series of subjective accounts.
An axiom of quantitative research is that researcher involvement reduces
the validity of a test. In qualitative research, denying the researcherÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s
role threatens that validity. Quantitative researchers argue that
dispassionate observation is impossible given human motivations and
emotions. Where quantitative approaches require very specific, standardized
testing, the nature of the investigation in qualitative research is
determined and adapted by the research itself. Quantitative research is
limited to what can be measured or quantified. Certain fields of research
have also become predominated by specific research methodologies, physics,
chemistry, biology, medicine, and other ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œhardÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â sciences among them.
Within the social sciences however, qualitative research and mixed
methodologies have become more broadly accepted approaches to studying
human behavior. Qualitative methods are also supported as superior methods
for understanding relationships in health services and policy research
(Hurley, 1999). In addition, other fields such as human relations,
organizational behavior, leadership, and ethics, known initially for their
heavy reliance on quantitative research, are exploring qualitative research
as an additive methodology. Conger (1998) supports this shift, pointing out
that qualitative leadership studies are still relatively rare in the
behavioral sciences. He also purports that since leadership study is
contextually rich, qualitative research is the most appropriate methodology
based on its adaptability to context.
Over time, alternative knowledge claims emerged, and were legitimized,
especially where problems identified with the scientific method arose. Some
(e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Poggenpoel, Myburgh, & van der Linde, 2001;
Schulman, 1994; Shani & Lau, 2000) believe that quantitative methodology
objectifies humans and their motivations. Their collective works
concentrate on the subjective nature of human experience and confirm the
appropriately subjective nature of qualitative research in its study.
The influx of increasing qualitative methodologies led researchers to
view scientific methods differently. Some arguments for thorough
investigation supported the idea of qualitative research as a component of
the scientific research method. Sogunro supports this, stating that
\”Research being a trust-finding construct aimed at verifying and
authenticating phenomena, evidence abounds that the use of a combination of
both quantitative and qualitative research methods results in a stronger
validity of outcomes\” (2002, p. 7). As Poggenpoel, Myburgh, and van der
Linde state, \”If the classic scientific research approach is followed it
implies that qualitative research will be a prerequisite for quantitative
research\” (2001, p. 10). With wider acceptance of qualitative
methodologies, researchers began to associate based on their preferred
knowledge claim positions such as, post positivism, constructivism,
advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism (Creswell, 2003). These preferred
knowledge claims combined with their inquiry strategies, quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed methodology, now often determine the total research
approach (Creswell, 2003).
Onwuegbuzie (2002) believes that researchers tend to approach inquiry
strategies from three perspectives, purists who argue methods should not be
mixed (mono-method), situationalists who argue that methods depend upon the
situation, and pragmatists who argue that mixed methodology is best.
Modern Research and Discovery
The greatest challenges inherent in research are accessibility and
repeatability. Any discovery is perceived as truth when the processes
supporting the discovery can be understood and replicated (Reyna &
Schiller, 1998). Repetition and predictive value are most apparent in
quantitative statistics and mathematical modeling. Modern Economics is
replete with quantitative studies and numbersÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“based maxims on consumer
behavior. In the specific organizational concentrations of leadership and
ethics, the research challenge goes beyond simply defining or
characterizing human traits and capacities as quantitatively modeled
phenomenon. True understanding often requires research methods be
illuminative of the complexities underlying socio-technical and other human
workplace interactions (Shani & Lau, 2002). While context and
confirmability apply to researching these interactions, the practice of
research has expanded. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies
now serve complementary functions to reach an understanding of these
complex, often non-rational, human behaviors (Onwuegbuzie, 2002).
Comparing Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods
As has been stated, the long-held standard for empirical knowledge in
organizational science and human behavior has been quantitative research.
In addition to statistically evaluating production and manufacturing
processes, quantitative survey instruments have been adapted for more
subjective processes such as measuring leadership capacities, ethical
decision making and human relations processes (Price, 1997). Statistical
techniques applied to quantitative data points offer clear mathematical
frameworks for reference and evaluation. Purposes for studying phenomena
include exploration, description, explanation (relationship or causal),
interpretive (language, hermeneutics, or phenomenology), critical research,
or prediction (Babbie, 2001; Cooper & Schindler, 2003; Trochim, 2001;
White, 1999). The purposes, however, eventually return to the research
methodology. As Winter points out, research subject sample size, selection
and observation methods ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œultimately relates on the degree to which the
research is intended to be internally or externally generalizableÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â (2000,
p. 7). Quantitative studies require enough sample size and averaging to
create a base line for analysis. Qualitative studies, on the other hand, do
not require statistical causation for validity. In fact, qualitative
studies such as those listed above, often choose to investigate
unrepresentative and less usual phenomenon (Winter, 2000).
Qualitative research exploring leadership issues has evolved as a useful,
more widely accepted and in some cases, more profound approach to
insightful analysis and overall understanding (Conger, 1998). In fact,
qualitative methods have now applied widely-accepted or grounded theory to
human dynamics (Bryman & Stephens, 1996).
The nature of these qualitative studies often includes interviews,
surveys or phenomenological studies, the raw data of which are transcribed
and coded for objective content analysis. This is not antithetical to
proven or accepted quantitative sampling methods. Schulman (1994) describes
triangulation as a process linking method, data and analysis as three
cornerstones of interpretation. Pragmatists have supported their position
of mixed methodology by using triangulation as a way to ensure robustness
and to offset the deficiencies in both quantitative and qualitative
research (Hall & Rist, 1999; Scandura & Williams, 2000). Supporting this
view, Abusabha and Woelfel (2003) declare there are three reasons for using
a mixed methodology; 1) all data has both an objective and a subjective
component, 2) \”using different methods allows researches to cross-validate
results\”, and 3) ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œmixing the two methods [qualitative and quantitative]
cancels out, somewhat, their corresponding weaknesses\” (p. 569).
As has been pointed out, the organizational research field has been
dominated by postpositivist assumptions or the scientific method. \”In some
discussions it often seems as if statistics and hypothesis testing dictated
the research process rather than the research problem and the phenomenon
being researched itself\” (Poggenpoel, Myburgh, &a