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.