Last week, I discussed qualitative research. Though the actual concept wasn't foreign to me, the actual definition was. Imagine that you have been doing a certain exercise at the gym for years and finally someone says, "Oh, I see that you are doing squat-benders" and you just never know that is what your exercise was called. That is what I mean by the concept not being foreign by the definition was. However, just like the person doing that exercise, they may be doing it with improper form. Even though I was familiar with the overall concept, I can tell you with confidence that I would have no idea how to actually conduct a qualitative study.
This week, we are shifting our focus a little from qualitative to quantitative research. It wasn't until my readings for the week that I realized that I actually missed some of the key points last week. We looked at a PowerPoint presentation this week and it had a comparison that I really loved between the two. It said, "Qualitative research aims at understanding. It answers primarily to as how? - questions." It then went on to say, "Quantitative research aims as (casual) explanation. It answers primarily to why? - questions." I was looking at qualitative research as being more a study of the change in the variables in a social experiment. I guess that really wasn't too far off. The variables in a given environment to affect the how but it is a little more in depth than that. Fortunately, the purpose of a class is to learn. It is okay if I get some concepts wrong. My understanding is still developing. In a case like this, it took studying quantitative research this week to understand what I was really supposed to be learning last week. These are actually fairly advanced concepts that may take some time to really understand.
So shifting my focus now to quantitative research - the why - I am left still scratching my head just a little trying to figure out how this really plays into the social sciences and, specifically, with my current and future leadership roles. Quantitative research does deal a lot with gathering numbers and statistics. However, the quantity is just the end result. Actual quantitative research is, like qualitative research, still adaptable. What I mean by that is that you still have to keep the desired goal of the research in mind and adjust your research methods to gather the correct data. It seems pretty straight-forward overall. Quantitative research aims to gather quantities and you adjust your methods to get the data that you need. It seems so simple so it may seem odd that I say that I am not quite sure how to apply that to leadership roles. The reason that I say that is because leadership and management are two completely different fields that people often confuse. I can see how managers can easily apply quantitative research in what they do because the role of a manager is to utilize available resources in the most efficient way. A leader, on the other hand, is there to provide vision, motivation and direction. To really understand how quantitative research fits with leadership, a leader would have to understand how changing variables change end results. For example, if I work for a company that makes widgets and we sell x number of widgets per week on average then, all of the sudden, we are selling y number of widgets instead as identified through quantitative research (remember, quantity = numbers), that would be a sign that we would need to investigate what variables changed to produce the new results. But again, doesn't that feel like more of a management function than a leadership function? Quantitative research tends to just take a snapshot of the environment and say, "this is what is going on and here is the data". (This is usually collected through a random sample of the population.)
Ultimately, qualitative and quantitative research should not be viewed as an "either this or that" choice. A leader needs to be able to know how to use the two together. Quantitative data will show you the snapshot. Qualitative research will show you what variables were at play to get there. And a leader must use the two to adjust the environment (NOT manipulate the environment but adjust through positive and meaningful change) to lead the organization to the next step.
No comments:
Post a Comment