I liked Chapter 2. In a way I wish I’d have had this (although I wasn’t ready and needed to go through the writing process to the point) type of explanation earlier. Even for those who are quantitative, there is information and a formula in this chapter.
I keep wrestling with whether or not I’ll do a quantitative or a qualitative dissertation. Although I had always thought it would be quantitative, I am beginning to think it just might be qualitative, especially given the topic of followership where little pre-existing research might be found.
The formulas presented in this chapter provide an outline for writing my qualitative project and give excellent examples of whatever area is being presented.
I particularly liked the discussion of the three ways to present current literature: synthesized, progressive, and noncoherence. I just assumed my paper would be what I perceived the easier, synthesized or progressive (most likely synthesized) but I can also see a role for noncoherence as well. For my particular area, followership, courage, and a strengths-based philosophy, there is certainly an place to use noncoherence. A significant amount of the literature is leader-centric and one can find almost any topic needed in the leadership subject. However less is known about leadership. In Jim Collins’ latest publication, How the Mighty Fall, he follows up his Good to Great best seller by examining some of the great companies who either are now gone or faced demise. One area Collins examines is Level 5 Leadership. Extensive research is devoted to the type of leader it takes to lead a company from good to great, or from a crisis (Stage 1 – 4 in the newest project) but no discussion of what the followers do or have done during the times of crisis or greatness. Although Collins does a simple correlation analysis for all his work, I believe a qualitative study may lend more “meat” to chew on for this under-examined area I’ve chosen.
No comments:
Post a Comment