DRAFT Comparing Two Articles Comparing two types of Studies This paper compares two types of studies (one qualitative, one quantitative). The paper will discuss the difference between induction and deduction as research approaches as well as the rationale for using either qualitative or quantitative research methods in the two provided studies. It will also discuss the application of induction or deduction in the two studies. Differences between Induction and Deduction as Research Approaches There are different approaches to research that depend on the overall objective of the research. Induction and deduction are different research approaches that relate on qualitative and quantitative methods.
Notably, qualitative induction approach forms the foundation for all scientific procedures that rely of collected data. As such, induction research approach is dependent on known information. Indeed, induction research approach asserts that empirical generalizations and theoretical statements should emanate from collected data. The inductive research approach defines a "bottom up" approach that moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. This approach is significant since it is more open-ended and exploratory which leads to detailed and justified conclusions.
Indeed, the inductive research approach is ampliative and draws a conclusion that supersedes the content of its premises. It relies on observations. A correct inductive research approach may not preserve the truth because it may have a true premise and a false conclusion. Notably, the inductive research approach is not erosion-proof and relates with qualitative research and naturalism. On the other hand, the deductive research approach defines a “top-down" approach that works from the more general assertions to the more specific assertions. In a deductive research approach, researchers begin with considering a theory about a given research subject.
The researchers then consider hypotheses that are more specific and collect relevant data to address specific hypotheses. This process helps in justifying the applied theories and testing specific hypotheses. As such, the deductive research approach relies on logical premises (available facts). Deductive research approach depends on laws, regulations, and accepted principles. However, this approach is narrower and entails a significant degree of uncertainty. In this research approach, researchers derive a valid argument that contains the content of the conclusion in the premises. In this case, true premises leads to a true conclusion.
Indeed, the validity of a deductive argument exists where there are no changes on its premises. Deductive research approach is nonampliative and erosion-proof. Unlike the induction research approach, a valid deduction approach preserves the truth in research. Rationale for Using Qualitative or Quantitative Research Methods in the Two Studies Qualitative research relates to the use of qualitative methods in a natural setting that reports detailed views of respondents with an aim of developing a complex and holistic understanding of a social or human problem. This method lacks measurable variables that are subject to statistical analysis.
The article, “The concept of organizational change capacity” by Richard Soparnot defines qualitative research. On the other hand, quantitative research relates to the use of quantitative methods and the inclusion of a test theory composed of measurable variables that are subject to statistical analysis aimed at addressing social or human problems. The article, “Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ” by Deanne N. Den Hartog and others define quantitative research. The rationale for using qualitative research methods in the article, “The concept of organizational change capacity” derives from the fact that the research seeks to propose a framework for change capacity and to identify its dimensions and components (Hartog 2011, p.
640). This involves immeasurable variables that are not subject to statistical analysis. Indeed, the research method adopted in this article helps in deriving three dimensions of the change capacity that include context, process, and learning dimensions (Hartog 2011, p. 640). We cannot quantify these dimensions. The research problem in this article is only subject to subjective evaluation, which manifests in the adopted qualitative research methods.
Ideally, qualitative research methods have a mandate of addressing subjective research. Only qualitative research methods like the single case study, two series of interviews, and observations from an organization could propose a framework for change capacity and identify its dimensions and components (Hartog 2011, p. 646). In fact, the qualitative research methods offered the right tools that initiated the process of understanding the complexity of change implementation, change management, and change capacity. The qualitative research methods were significant in facilitating the most neutral observation possible of the facts that defined how to create a framework for change capacity, what derives the dimensions, and components change capacity.
As such, the qualitative research methods used in this article were fundamental in collecting data that enhanced the development of a qualitative understanding. From the case study and observations from an organization, we can understand the meaning derived by the respondents, which defines qualitative research. The qualitative research methods used in this case are equally practical since the respondents had greater freedom in their replies where they chose what to comment about (Hartog 2011, p.
648). Moreover, these methods helped the interviewers to collect unanticipated information about the study that reinforced the findings. Indeed, the data collected by the qualitative research methods is detailed and reliable for the study. The information derived from the data collected using qualitative research methods was reliable and relevant to the managers seeking to develop a framework for change capacity and change implementation. Works Cited Hartog, D, Muijen, J & Koopman, P 1997, ‘Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ, ’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol 70, pp.
19-34. Soparnot, R 2011, ‘The concept of organizational change capacity, ’ Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 640-661.