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.
No comments:
Post a Comment