A500.7.3.RB_MedleyKim_Quantitative Reflections

            According to Tero Mamia (n.d.), whereas qualitative research attempts to answer the question “how”; quantitative research takes regularities and patterns that take place in society, assigns numbers to such occurrences, studies those numbers with statistical formulas, and attempts to answer the question “why”. A study, conducted by Judge, Ilies, Bono, and Gerhardt (2002), applied both qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a more consistent framework for measuring personality traits often associated with leadership. They contend a level of skepticism, regarding the correlation between personality traits and leadership, had been noted since 1948. Judge et al., (2002) used qualitative studies by experts in the field to identify personality traits sustained by at least ten separate studies. With this list, they incorporated the Five-Factor Model of Personality; and, after having developed a meta-analysis formula, they were able to determine a hierarchy of personality traits as they relate to emergent and effective leadership (Judge et al., 2002). Extraversion was the strongest trait while Neuroticism was the weakest (Judge et al., 2002).

            Being naturally curious, my mind began to ask quite a few questions with regards to my action research paper. If I had more time to research curiosity and courage, it would be interesting to develop a similar protocol to test which personality traits would emerge as the strongest and the weakest for curiosity and courage. I can imagine scouring prior qualitative reviews from experts in the field of curiosity and courage. From that endeavor, I would form a table just as Judge et al. (2002) did. From this, I would narrow the list to a manageable one for quantitative research. Based on the methods used by Judge et al. (2002), I could rely on the Five-Factor Model to begin to identify those personality traits most associated with curiosity and courage, as well as those that fail to register any response. Would there also be a correlation with leadership? Are leaders curious? Do they have higher levels of curiosity? Are they more intellectually courageous than other people? The possibilities are quite intriguing to say the least.

            As Mamia (n.d.) notes, quantitative research presents both strengths and weaknesses. Numbers provide a relatively easy method for describing change within a unit and across various units. Perhaps a curiosity and courage study would indicate women are 50% more curious than men; but, men are three times as likely to admit to being wrong than women. While this presentation ascribes tangible numbers, over simplification of curiosity and its correlation with courage becomes a concern for researchers. Questions such as when are women more curious than men and under what circumstances will men admit to being wrong are perhaps better addressed with a qualitative approach. Numbers are numbers. They are black and white figures, whereas human observations take place in living color.

            Of the top five traits identified by Judge et al. (2002), I would imagine Openness to Experience would demonstrate the strongest correlation to curiosity with Neuroticism being the weakest. With courage, I would expect to see Agreeableness as the strong correlation with courage. According to Judge et al. (2002), affiliation is linked to Agreeableness and the “need for affiliation” has a negative correlation with leadership. Could this be an explanation as to why leaders exhibit intellectual courage? Since leaders are not focused on affiliations, are they more able to admit to wrongly held beliefs and accept new information? Neuroticism would also be the weakest for courage. Having this particular study as a reference point has only led to more questions for this curious future leader.

             

A500.6.3.RB_MedleyKim_Qualitative and Quantitative: The Difference is More

          Marie C. Hoepfl (1997) takes great care to explore the world of qualitative research and provides us with a better appreciation for the benefits of this type of research. A simple glance of the words used to describe the two methodologies of study, qualitative and quantitative, shows the fourth letter of each, “l” and “n”, are separated by the letter “m”, as in more. Hoepfl (1997) sites the calls from others for more, to expand, to go beyond the primary method of research, which is quantitative. Although there are many benefits to be gained by adopting this style; many scholars are unaware of its processes. As Zuga (1994) notes, of the 220 reports, only sixteen investigate qualitative methodologies (as cited in Hoepfl, 1997). It’s that age old adage, quality versus quantity, and which is the better choice?

          Qualitative research relies upon a “naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings” (Hoepfl, 1997). Whereas quantitative research establishes a hypothesis, conducts controlled experiments, records the findings, analyzes the numbers, and makes a conclusion based on statistical information, qualitative research provides for the consideration those interactions that occur in a social setting, and their effects. What happens when the human element is added?

          To demonstrate the quantitative approach, imagine a scientist wishes to test the effect of mountain water on human skin. The scientist would develop a hypothesis, such as; the external temperature of the skin will decrease when cold mountain water is applied. Random sampling, in order to develop adequate representation of a larger population, like college students, would be conducted. In a controlled setting, perhaps the Biology lab on campus, participants would be advised of the experiment to be conducted. The external temperature of each applicant’s skin would be recorded. Let’s say for illustrative purposes, the test area is that of the right and left forearm. Assistants would use an instrument to take the temperature of each forearm and the results would be recorded. Cold water, with a degree of coldness designed to represent mountain water, would then be applied to the test area. Post-application heat levels would be recorded. Once all experimentation had been completed, the results would then be analyzed using statistical formulas. Comparison of the results would be made and from the numerical data, a conclusion would be reached. Now, let’s apply qualitative methods to the same topic.

          Suppose the effects of cold, mountain water on the human skin were to be tested by a qualitative researcher. Hoepfl (1997) identifies “maximum variation sampling” as the method most helpful for this style. A group of children and adults are selected for observational study. The setting, instead of a lab, is an area of a mountain stream used as a swimming hole. So as to avoid any “distortion of the natural scene”, the researcher, who is the observer for the experiment, should either plan to be a part of the experiment, or a passive observer (Hoepfl, 1997). This could be achieved with the placement of hidden cameras, like the ones used by naturalists to capture animals in their natural habitat. With cameras in place, the natural actions of the group are recorded in order to see the effects of cold, mountain water on the human skin as each member enters the water. First, how does each person get in the water? Does one dip their toe first, to test the coldness, while another grabs the end of a rope swing and yells “cowabunga” before letting go? In addition to noting physiological changes, for example, goose bumps, blue lips, and the chilling effect described by George Costanza of Seinfeld as shrinkage; the qualitative researcher would record facial expressions and other gestures that occur as a result of the subject being introduced to cold, mountain water. If the experiment takes place on a hot, sunny day, the expressions and gestures may indicate the coldness is welcomed. If the day is overcast, or possibly snowing, as is the situation when the Polar Bear clubs take their annual plunge, shivers and chattering teeth may be the overarching notes of the day.

          So why use qualitative research? Rather than rely on conclusions reached by using theories and numerical data, qualitative research provides its audience with credibility, dependability, and confirmability, that can not only be seen; but, can be imagined as the reader reads the researchers recounts. Qualitative provides for that element of surprise as a result of social interaction. Data may lead scholars to believe humans would likely avoid exposure to water once it reaches forty degrees. Qualitative shows how wrong this conclusion is. Imagine teaching the mathematical principle of fractions to a child. What if the naturalistic approach were applied as opposed to the numbers method? Without knowing, the qualitative approach provided me with the opportunity to better explain fractions to my oldest son. I used cooking to demonstrate fractions. Recipes often instruct its readers to use a quarter teaspoon of this, or a three-quarter cup of this. In order to either reduce or increase a recipe, fractions have to be understood. By showing how fractions are used in a social setting, he understood the principle better. The qualitative experience provided him with a deeper understanding of the issue. Today, he works as a chef in St. Augustine.  Numbers in a table, more often than not, dampen my inner curiosity; however, when those numbers are few, and the experiment comes to life, either through recorded evidence or through imagery, I gain a much deeper and broader understanding of and appreciation for the topic being presented. 

A500.5.3.RB_MedleyKim_Critical Thinking About Critical Thinking

     As I look at the topic for this week’s blog, I am reminded of a song by Kenny Rogers, when he was still with the group, The First Edition. The song, “Just Dropped In”, contains a well-known; but, often forgotten chorus, “I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was is”. That line sums how I am feeling about today’s topic, “critical thinking about critical thinking”. Instead of pushing my soul into a “deep dark hole” and chasing it down the rabbit hole; I write about my thought process and have even parked many of those thoughts in The Brain, software specifically designed to organize thoughts. Now, if only my brain can master The Brain.

     I thought it appropriate to take a look at the thoughts I mapped out during week three. The four areas of focus I listed are based on Nosich’s (2012) findings and include developing a better understanding, stopping the swirl, questioning, applying the eight elements, becoming more disciplined, setting standards; and, as always, practice, practice, practice. Of these thoughts, the application of the eight elements and setting standards are those that are changing. Perhaps this is due in part because of the annotated bibliography assignment and the quest to find not only credible source of information; but, information that will add credence to the action research project currently in process.

     I am naturally curious, so asking questions about articles comes easily. Courage is a bit more difficult as there is always a temptation to capture the first few writings about a particular subject and later attempt to make the research match the area of study. The circle of reasoning and the application of the eight elements helps me to go around the circle, look at each wedge of reasoning, and not only internalize those steps; but, use them in the here and now in order to put together an effective presentation. The QEDS, outlined by Nosich (2012), act as blinders for me and help me focus on the topic, which asks the question, how easy is it to admit wrong with long-held beliefs, and if curiosity sent us in search of information to satisfy a stimulation, why then can we not accept the new belief? Is there an element of or a tipping point for curiosity that inhibits our courage?

     One of my favorite prayers which help me to slow the swirl so that I can absorb and reflect upon new information is the “Serenity Prayer”. These few lines of verse were plastered on a host of retail products during the 70s. Rather than rely on my memory, the following captures the prayer:

Figure 1. Serenity Prayer – Behiel (2014).

As it applies to critical thinking, the prayer, at least for me, is a way to continually seek and accept curiosity so that I may question why things cannot be changed, courage to change and to not change things; and finally, wisdom to understand the difference.

     Nosich (2012) states we may never acquire all of the intellectual traits that lead to the pinnacle of critical thinking. Do I have the courage to accept that and if not; what other avenues of curiosity can I follow to the top of that pinnacle? At times, the current state of my critical thinking seems as foreign as a psychedelic Kenny Rogers questioning the condition of his condition. More often than not, it is a one that finds me at peace with its current state while in search of methodologies that lead to internal changes for future applications. 

A500.4.3.RB_MedleyKim_Choices

            In her presentation, “The Art of Choosing”, Sheena Iyengar (2010) explores three primary assumptions that apply to Americans and how they make choices. Her hypothesis theorizes that if a choice impacts an individual, the choice should be made by the individual; if more choices are offered, better choices will be made, and we should “never say no to choice” (Iyengar, 2010). By beginning with an illustration of how Americans and Japanese view green tea, with or without sugar, Iyengar (2010) provides a foundation from which to understand how the concept of collectiveness, that once existed in American culture, transformed into individualism. As Iyengar (2010) notes, we as Americans believe our way of choosing is somehow better than methods that have existed in other cultures longer than we have been an independent country. In an effort to demonstrate her points, I’d like to take each assumption, apply them to the overall process of voting, and then ask if more choices lead to better choices by individuals and if we should say no to some choices.

            In her green tea story, Iyengar (2010) points out the manager of the restaurant was simply trying to protect Iyengar from herself as she did not know any better and by not allowing her to put sugar in the tea; they had helped her to save face. The studies she performs with grade school children clearly show the divide between individualism and collectivism as American children performed better when they made their own choice and Asian-American children performed better when mom made the choice. According to Iyengar (2010), “if a choice affects you, then you should be the one to make it”. Now, let’s apply this to voting. How many times are we told elections have consequences? Many, including myself, would argue we are experiencing such consequences as a result of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential election; but, that’s a story for another blog. Iyengar (2010) further notes that first generation immigrant parents have a major impact with their children and choices. Those choices helped to form a sense of community, added to a collective concept, and shaped the preferences of earlier generations (Iyengar, 2010). I would imagine this was seen with each wave of immigrants who found their way to America’s shores. Voting choices belonged to white men for many centuries. Various beliefs and preferences would have been discussed with male heirs thereby shaping voting preferences. Through war and protest, these choices were extended to freed black men and eventually women. Imagine the discussions parents held with their children to emphasize the history of not only achieving the right to vote; but, the importance of voting. Again, preferences are shaped. I remember many discussions around my father’s dinner table that often included politics and elections. Although they were not first generation immigrants, my parents shaped my understanding of voting. It is a choice I have made each year since 1980. Since casting my first ballot, changes have been made that offer a voter more choices. Have more choices led to better choices?

            The second assumption Iyengar (2010) covers is that better choices are made when more choices are offered. Prior to 2004, Florida provided limited options for voting. The most common was to vote in your assigned precinct on Election Day. If a voter expected to be out of town, or could otherwise not vote on Election Day, an absentee ballot could be obtained from the local election office and the voter could cast the ballot early. Today, we have as many as fourteen days of Early Voting and voting by absentee ballot. A number of other states offer this convenience, too; however, I wonder if different ways of voting have led to better choices, or for that matter, better turnout. A voter has three choices: vote by absentee, Early Vote, or vote on Election Day; yet, as noted by Iyengar (2010) all three are still an act of voting. Just as Iyengar (2010) describes those who adamantly defend the choice between Coke and Pepsi, is there any difference between today’s Republican or Democrat candidate? Is the difference enough such that the difference can be spotted by voters? Are today’s voters overwhelmed with too many choices? Do we fear the choices? Have elections, for some, become “meaningless minutia” (Iyengar, 2010)? In a 2010 Flagler Live article titled, “Lazier Voters: Flagler’s 52% Turnout Was Worst In at Least 16 Years of Mid-Terms”, a decline in the total percentage of Flagler voters is shown from 2002 to 2010 for mid-term elections. Did the added choices have an impact? How many wrote-in “Mickey Mouse” or “John Wayne” for President? Will the different ways to cast a ballot provide me with a better opportunity for representation; or, am I confined to candidates selected by establishment organizations? How many simply decide to say “no” to choice?

            The final assumption, “never say no to choice” holds interesting connotations when applied to voting (Iyengar, 2010). In her speech, a tale is told of French and American parents facing the same medical dilemma with a child. In France, medical professionals made the choice to discontinue life supports; while American parents made the final choice (Iyengar, 2010). What if professional election teams conducted all of the research, submitted final selections to local, state, and federal legislative bodies, and made the final choices for various elected offices? How would voters react? I would imagine it would similar to the findings of Iyengar (2010); voters would not give the final choice to professionals. It would be completely contrary to our teachings and beliefs. Yet, today, so many choose to say no the choice of voting. Iyengar (2010) notes those American parents who made the difficult decision felt “trapped, guilty, and angry”; yet, they chose to end life support; not medical professionals. Perhaps young voters do not wish to feel “trapped, guilty, or angry” with their choices and that is why they choose to not vote. That’s another interesting note for another blog.

            The final image presented by Iyengar (2010) completely drives home the point about choice, particularly with voting. Think of today’s politicians as a choice between “Ballet Slippers” or “Adorable”; one being “elegant” and the other being “glamorous” (Iyengar, 2010). Absent faces or labels, what is the difference? At one time, such as when politics was the topic of discussion around my father’s table, there was a discernable difference between the two major parties. It was easily spotted and voters from both sides saw opportunities through their choices. When I speak with my children, who are just two generations removed from my father, the concept of voting for the candidate who will do the most good for the collective is a foreign concept. Their concept is what will the candidate do for me? Our once close-knit families and communities have thinned and have allowed for the transformation of individualism. The concept of individualism and leadership is playing out before our eyes with each headline that flashes across the evening news screen. We see a leader apparently more concerned with playing golf rather than developing strategies to address possible threats. Perhaps this is why, that with even more choices for voting, we choose not to.