Differencies between quantitative and qualitative research methods: Using qualitative research method to study the leardership

ABSTRACT:

This paper presents an overview and contrast on quantitative and qualitative research perspectives. The qualitative research is subjective and is based on linguistic data and descriptive methods. Meanwhile, the quantitative research is objective and is based on data and statistical methods. In addition, this paper provides a more comprehensive understanding of the differences of the two above-mentioned research methods by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each method. This paper also shows that the use of qualitative research methods gives insight into the competence of leaders.

Keywords: Leadership, qualitative, quantitative.

1. Introduction

A quantitative perspective indicates that knowledge is “out there” to be discovered whereas, a qualitative perspective refers that knowledge is constructed within the perceptions and interpretations of the individual (VanderStoep & Johnston, 2009). In social science, there has been a controversial issue in which the most relevant philosophical stance should be derived. The research purposes of the quantitative and qualitative perspective both have different effects. While the qualitative perspective is subjective and uses language and description, the quantitative perspective is objective and refers on figures and statistics. This paper attempts to give an overview and a contrast of the two different research perspectives — quantitative and qualitative. Furthermore, the paper is to show the selection of the qualitative perspective as a pathway of gaining the insights and discoveries in the leadership studies.

2. Overview of quantitative and qualitative perspectives

Quantitative perspective utilizes the deductive and statistical methods. Its goal is to generalize the results to the entire population. In contrast, the qualitative perspective uses inductive and exploratory method. The purposes of qualitative research use description and exploration to obtain a deep intelligibility the meaning of social phenomena. The narrative results focused on the individual and the life experience, and generalization is usually not a goal. The overview of both perspectives will be discussed in the following table.

Table 1: Attributes of Quantitative and Qualitative paradigms.

                                       Source: Adjusted the work of Steckler et al. (1992)

2.1. Purpose

The purpose of quantitative research is more predictive than descriptive. The quantitative research is emphasized by the study of social variables that lead to prediction of a social phenomenon (VanderStoep & Johnston, 2009). Using quantitative data, we might find a statistically significant relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable, and we might even have some ground to speculate about causality between these two variables. That is, within the quantitative research reality is construed as being composed of causes and effects and it is the researcher’s role to quantify these in order to predict future behavior, outcomes, or other events (Borland, 2001).

On the other hand, the purpose of quantitative research is more descriptive than predictive. The qualitative research is emphasized on greater understanding or intelligibility the meaning of social phenomena. This usually implies attempting to understand and define the culture of the individuals and groups that are being studied (VanderStoep & Johnston, 2009). The qualitative methods seek to describe, decode, translate, and come to terms with the meaning of certain natural occurring phenomena in the social world (Borland, 2001). Thus, conducting description is the central work of data collection in the qualitative methods. For example, in a study of stakeholders’ perception of CEO celebrity in a firm, it was employees, managers, suppliers’ responses to the open-ended questions, and not the closed-ended questions, that convinced the firm’s Board of Directors that the perception of CEO celebrity were strongly disliked by some staff personnel and should be studied further.

2.2. Measurement

Quantitative research is measured through objective rather than subjective methods. The assumption of quantitative research is that reality is external, a real world makes up of hard, tangible and relatively immutable structure (Burrel & Morgan, 1979). The quantitative research is designed to ensure objectivity, generalizability and reliability. The quantitative researcher has access to methods and techniques which enable them to answer their questions precisely, systematically. It is believed that through scientific methods, research findings can be generalized from the particular segment to the entire population. For an example, a quantitative research may conduct on the idea that Chief Executive Officer (CEO) performance is significant to a firm. In this case, CEO performance might be measured through the annual certification contest with a number of medal awards (Hayward, 2004).

In other hand, the subjectivist approach deals with the way people experience phenomena in the world and define its meaning. Qualitative researchers tend to describe the unfolding of social processes, the meaning of social life, rather than the social structures that are often the focus of quantitative researchers (VanderStoep & Johnston, 2009). For example, CEO performance might be measured through a number of external factors such as symbolic perspective viewed by stakeholder and managerial competencies. Thus, the in-depth interviews will be probably conducted to several senior managers about their perceptions of their CEO performance and a focus group on employees, suppliers, distributors, and shareholders to gain a better understanding of their perspectives on CEO performance.

2.3. Method

The key distinction between qualitative and quantitative perspectives is that quantitative research is deductive[1] and qualitative research is inductive[2]. The quantitative research uses methods adopted from the physical sciences, including appropriate statistical techniques, to study CEO behavior or other related social phenomena to determine if and to what extent predetermined study variables are causally related. In this perspective, experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to collect numerical data on a population sample (Steckler et al., 1992). They administer survey questionnaires with predetermined response categories through in-person inter-views, telephone interviews, or mailings. The goal in collecting quantitative data is also to generate measures that are reliable, generalizable, and unbiased (Steckler et al., 1992).

The qualitative research, on the other hand, applies anthropological research methods to study relevant social phenomena. Researchers using qualitative methods immerse themselves in a culture by observing its people and their interactions; participating in activities; interviewing key people; taking life histories; constructing case studies; and/or analyzing existing documents (Steckler et al., 1992). The goal in collecting qualitative data is to elicit an “insider’s”; view from the group under study. For example, for the study of CEO celebrity, an insider’s view provides an understanding of how people perceive a CEO as celebrity, why people react to it the way they do, why CEO celebrity has specific effects on stakeholder and to the firm, and what the unanticipated consequences of CEO celebrity are. By examining why and how some CEO celebrity succeed and others do not are able to improve future programs.

2.4. Focus

The researchers make some arguments on generalizability that is how much, how well, or how closely the findings from the current sample apply to the entire population. In the qualitative research, researcher endeavors to observe individuals and within organizations holistically rather than as sums of their parts every case is valid and potentially worthy of study. Every case is representative of a specific personal life experiences and interpretations of those experiences. The focus of qualitative research is to describe the meaning of participants’ experiences even if the participant or experience is not typical of the majority experience. However, qualitative research is limited in generalizability. The researcher can more freely generalize if the single consumer of the research report is also the single object of the study (Borland, 2001). For instance, qualitative researchers who conduct a case study related to CEO celebrity in a collectivism country, like Vietnam may generalize for the study of CEO as celebrity in collectivism culture. They may not generalize for other individualism culture, like US or Australia. The researchers from other collectivism cultures, like China, South Korea will find the results of the study usable only to the degree that they evaluate their own experience and perceptions as same to the environment in which the research was made.

In contrast, the focus of quantitative research is to find the typical, the average, the trend that can be generalized to large populations. The method does not study individual human beings but rather seeks to identify relationships between variables that explain behaviors that define specific populations of individuals (Borland, 2001). The keys are to accurately define the specific population of interest and to select a sample that accurately represents it. Therefore, the findings from the sample are generalized to the entire population.

In conclusion, section 2 demonstrates the main attributes of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms in term of purpose, measurement, method and focus. Section 3 provides a comprehensive understanding of the differences of the two research perspective by representing their strengths and weaknesses.

3. Strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research

Both perspectives have their own strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses are compensated for by the strengths of the other.

There are several strengths and weaknesses quantitative research. First strength is identified that quantitative research provides a wide coverage of the range of situations. In addition, fast and economical aspects are the second strength. That is, it is suitable when time and resources are limited. It is also better to use quantitative research when statistics results are being stressed. More importantly, quantitative methods produce factual, reliable outcome data that are usually generalizable to some larger population. However, its disadvantages are inflexible and artificial. It provides very little understanding towards the actions demonstrated by human being and as a result, make it difficult to predict any changes in the future. For example, a quantitative research may be able to give a general idea on the cause effect relationship of manager performance and managerial competencies but, it may fail to supply the details on how the linkage differs for every individual manager and why. Therefore, it might not be very helpful in generating theories or understanding the issues thoroughly.

The weaknesses of quantitative perspective are most of the times the strengths of the qualitative perspective. The qualitative perspective has the ability to look at the change processes over time. Moreover, the qualitative methods generate rich, detailed, valid process data by interviewing and observing people. For example, qualitative methods also provide contextual understanding of CEOs’ behavior and their effects results. With a good amount of valuable information, the data, ideas and issues can be adjusted as they emerge. Due to this, it is a better instrument used by researchers who want to be able to generate theories at the end of their studies. In addition, by interviewing and observing people, the qualitative process happens naturally in its own environment rather than in an artificially created surrounding as the quantitative process. However, qualitative research has several disadvantages. Data collection in qualitative research can take a great time and resources. It is then not relevant for studies that need limited time and financial support. The collected data may look disorganized because of the lack of researcher control on the data. For example, it is not possible for a researcher to maintain the same discussion when interviewing multiple stakeholders. This is due to the fact that people are often encouraged to talk about unrelated things from time to time. Thus, the data analysis and interpretation may be very difficult.

In short, section 3 illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research. Some authors refer to quantitative approaches as the dominant paradigm because the purposes, procedures, and benefits of quantitative methods are well known and accepted. In contrast, the purposes, procedures, and benefits of qualitative methods are unfamiliar to many. I, therefore, emphasize qualitative research in the next section of this paper because I believe it helps to obtain a comprehensive understanding of CEO celebrity study in leadership.

4. Qualitative in leadership

Schilling (2007) stresses the importance of qualitative research as the concept of leadership involves multiple levels of phenomena, possesses a dynamic character, and has a symbolic component. As the focus of the present study (a study of CEO as celebrity) lies particularly on the symbolic and subjective character of leadership, a qualitative research indicates an appropriate approach. The aim of this second part of the paper is to critically examine peer reviewed articles in CEO celebrity study and to use the literature to justify why qualitative research is chosen for the study of CEO celebrity.

4.1. The study in CEO celebrity

4.1.1. The definition of CEO celebrity

CEO celebrity is defined as a circumstance arising when journalists broadcast the attributions that a firm’s positive performance has been caused by its CEO’s actions (Ketchen et al., 2008). To be celebrity, CEO actions and behaviors must stand out from others. This distinction can be obtained via behavioral consistency organization, and/or differing actions from other CEOs operating in the similar environment (Treadway et al., 2008). In Tran (2009) shows a case of Mobivi, one of the largest online payment firms in Vietnam, where leadership skill is critical issue and celebrity of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) - Trung Dung[3] is utilized as the company intangible asset. However, with the CEO as celebrity, the Mobivi has some managerial problems, such as internal conflict of interest in Board of Directors, lack of knowledge sharing in cross functional departments, and lack of staff motivation.

4.1.2. The overview of the study of CEO as celebrity

This objective of the particular study is to further explore the study of the CEO as celebrity. The study of CEO celebrity may aid in answering the extent to which leadership field and why some CEO celebrities succeed and others do not.  The research question broadly asked in this study is, “How do charismatic leadership affect to CEO celebrity effectiveness?”  Specifically, this study tries to answer the sub following questions; (1) to investigate the impact of charisma leadership skills on CEO celebrity effectiveness, (2) to identify the most requisite charismatic skills that CEO celebrities need to improve their effectiveness (3) to identify perceived CEOs celebrity-generation to multiple stakeholders.

4.2. Justification of qualitative research for the study of CEO celebrity

4.2.1. Change process

Several of the studies are concerned with how leaders and their styles of leadership promote change and how leadership styles themselves change in response to particular circumstances (Bryman, 2004). In change process, the leaders should consider in addressing multiple stakeholders (external and internal), instilling a vision of how change to be implemented, and looking for what the future state of the organization to be. The emphasis on change is especially prominent in qualitative research of leadership which show how, over time and often in the face of considerable adversity, leaders make an impact on their organizations (Bryman, 2004). As such, the researcher is able to view over time the kinds of impacts that leaders make and how they respond to problems with which they are faced. Qualitative research is particularly appropriate methods in terms of providing a detailed sense of the context that forms the backcloth to the ways that leaders implement the change process.

4.2.2. Context

Qualitative research on leadership tends to give greater attention to the ways in which leaders and styles of leadership have to be or tend to be responsive to particular circumstances. Qualitative researchers are more likely to emphasize the significance of the sector within which leadership takes place (schools, business organizations) for styles of leadership and what is regarded as more or less effective. Qualitative researchers tend to be more sensitive to the situational factors or generic aspects of different contexts, such as the leader - member relations, and the leader’s position power (Bryman, 2004).

4.2.3. Ceo

In qualitative research, there is a tendency to focus on CEO, such as top executives, and their teams, whereas quantitative research tends to be concerned with leaders at a variety of levels. To access the leader behavior of CEO, researchers may interview and observe the leaders at work and/or interview others regarding their leader behavior. For example, in CEO celebrity study, the research should interview and observe CEO who is the focus of the research, as well as multiple stakeholders in order to better an understanding of the CEO’s impact.

In conclusion, there are several mentioned aspects of leadership that is difficult to gain access to through quantitative research. As a result, qualitative research is greatly justified the particular circumstances. It has proved valuable in certain areas: understanding leadership in relation to the change process; how leaders manipulate symbols and meaning to achieve organizational ends; appreciating the relevance of context for leader behavior; and giving us insights into the worlds of senior leaders or CEOs.

4.3. Tentative Research design

The purpose of research design is to present a pilot work in the qualitative method that is conducted in Vietnam. The tools of qualitative research as in-depth interviews and focus group are to be discussed.

The in-depth interviews involve five CEO interviews with five different firms. There are three 3 CEO celebrities that are recommended by the Vietnamese Business Association and Business Financial Journalist. The three CEO celebrities can be a winner of the annual certification gold award, “the CEO of the year” award.

The focus group discussions are classified into 3 types of stakeholders and each type is conducted with one group that consists of 6 to 8 people. First group classification is potential stakeholders as firm investors, potential suppliers and distributors, and customers. Second group classification is engaged stake holders as firm's stockholders, employees and managers, distributors, suppliers, current customers. Third group classification is government agencies, business associations, community network, and business journalists. All, the qualitative research conducts in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. All of the in-depth interviews and focus group discussion use an informal conversational style which begins with a brief explanation of the purpose of the research and an assurance of the confidentiality. The interviews and discussions are conducted in Vietnamese language with only one moderator throughout in order to control the consistency of the work.

5. Conclusion

The research purposes of the quantitative and qualitative perspective both have different effects. While the qualitative perspective is subjective and uses language and description, the quantitative perspective is objective and refers on figures and statistics.

This paper shows to give an overview and a contrast of the two different research perspectives - quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research distinguishes from qualitative research in its purpose, measurement, methods, and focus. Furthermore, the paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the differences of the two research perspective by representing their strengths and weaknesses. More importantly, the paper is to show the selection of the qualitative perspective as a pathway of gaining the insights and discoveries in the leadership studies.

TÀI LIỆU TRÍCH DẪN:

[1] A deductive approach is a process of reasoning that flows from a theory or hypothesis to systematic empirical observation to conclusion (VanderStoep SW & Johnston, DD 2009).

[2]An inductive approach is a process of reasoning that follows a reverse path - observation precedes theory, hypothesis, and interpretation (VanderStoep SW & Johnston, DD 2009).

[3] According to the Wikipedia (2009), Dung founded and ran OnDisplay, Inc which was a pioneer in the development of business-to-business application integration technology. Mr. Dung grew OnDisplay from a product concept to an enterprise software company that was one of the 10 most successful IPOs in 1999 and was ultimately acquired by Vignette Corporation in 2000 for $1.8 billion Wikipedia (2009). In Tran (2009), Trung Dung is now the CEO and chairman of the Mobivi. Trung Dung is a famous businessman, as a first and only USD billionaire, in banking and finance, Information Technology and Vietnamese Business and Commerce Association.

REFERENCES:

1. Borland, K.W. (2001). New directions for institutional research, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Burrel, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann.
3. Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp. 729-769.
4. Hayward, M., Rindova, V., & Pollock, T. (2004). Believing one's own press: The causes and consequences of CEO celebrity. Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp. 637-655.
5. Ketchen, D.J., Adams, G.L. & Shook, C.L. (2008) Understanding and managing CEO celebrity. Business Horizons, 51, pp. 529-534.
6. Steckler, A., McLeroy, K.R., Goodman, R.M., Bird, S.T. & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: An Introduction. Health Education Behavior, pp 19.
7. Schilling, J. (2007). Leaders romantic conceptions of the consequences of leadership. Applied Psychology, 56(4) pp. 602 - 623.
8. Tran, M.D., (2009), Viet Phu’s payment support corporation (Mobivi), Organizational analysis report, DBA program, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW,.
9. Treadway, D., Adams, G., Ranft, A., & Ferris, G. (2009). A meso-level conceptualization of CEO celebrity effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, pp. 554-570.
10. VanderStoep, S.W. & Johnston, D.D (2019). Research Methods for everyday life. Jossey-Bass.

Sự khác nhau giữa phương pháp nghiên cứu định tính và định lượng: Áp dụng phương pháp định tính trong nghiên cứu về sự lãnh đạo

Trần Mai Đông

Đại học Kinh tế TP. Hồ Chí Minh

TÓM TẮT:

Bài nghiên cứu này cung cấp một cách nhìn tổng quát và tương phản về hai quan điểm nghiên cứu định lượng và định tính. Nghiên cứu định tính mang tính chất chủ quan và dựa trên dữ liệu về ngôn ngữ và các phương pháp mô tả. Trong khi đó, nghiên cứu định lượng mang tính chất khách quan và dựa trên số liệu và các phương pháp thống kê. Bên cạnh đó, bài nghiên cứu này đưa ra một cách hiểu toàn diện hơn về sự khác biệt của hai phương pháp nghiên cứu nêu trên bằng việc đưa ra các điểm mạnh và điểm yếu của từng phương pháp. Bài nghiên cứu cũng cho thấy việc lựa chọn phương pháp nghiên cứu định tính đem lại những hiểu biết sâu sắc về năng lực của nhà lãnh đạo.

Từ khóa: Lãnh đạo, nghiên cứu định lượng, nghiên cứu định tính.