Analyzing Research Methods (Mixed, Qualitative and Quantitative methods)

In order to draw a conclusion, the need to include various methods of research is of vital importance. Evaluation is done on the basis of assumptions, philosophical positions and values, which in turn are shared and based on intended usages. The result of the evaluation is directly dependent upon the discretion of the evaluator. Evaluation is primarily done on the basis of the quality of work and henceforth, the result of all researches is directly dependent upon the numerous research methodologies that have been formulated after a detailed case study and eminent researches (Creswell, 2003). Whenever researches are carried out on the basis of quantitative standards, their end results are always based upon the quality standards, which in turn, are defined by making adequate use of the concept of validity (Cook & Campbell, 1972). In relation to this method, one needs to first establish a relationship between two variables and then decide whether that relationship is valid or not. While conclusion validity and internal validity are developed to access the validity between two distinct variables, the construct validity is primarily used to ensure that both these variables are realized in a practical sense. Qualitative tradition includes the concept of conceptual validity, wherein the interpretative inquiry is judged on the basis of a solid approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The mixed method approach must include notions of credibility and transferability, whereby information gathered is evaluated careful within the concepts and notions that guide internal and external validity. The qualitative and quantitative approaches are poles apart and hence they cannot be measured in the same weighing scale. Traditional integration using mixed method approaches have brought about a conclusion through which, each approach is considered a compliment to the other approach (Brenda, 2009).

The mixed method approach
A mixed method methodology is often looked on as an essential tool to conduct and then measure leadership qualities pertinent to the modern human resource environment. In relation to Green et al (1989) design approach, mixed method is considered better than both qualitative and quantitative research methods. According to the designer, a mixed method approach has the ability to enhance the evaluation procedure through the means of these five elements, which in turn, are often interpreted as advantages: (1) The implementation of triangulation tests, through which an evaluator’s chances of controlling and assessing threats is increased and the evaluator is presented with multiple causes for influencing the results, (2) Through the usage of complementary, wherein the evaluator has the distinct advantage of clarifying and illustrating results from one method by making use of another for scores and statistics process and purposes, (3) Development of methods, one method leads to another method and this in turn spurns a chain reaction which ultimately aids in the research process. Partial methods of preprogram methods clearly suggest that there is need for other assessments, which therefore need to be incorporated in haste, (4) The process of initiation through which, an evaluator is able to create new search questions or challenge results that are based on a single method of evaluation. The perception of programs gets a new insight through in-depth interviewing procedures, and (5) the scope of expansion. The evaluator is able to fathom the richness of details on the ongoing study, which in turn opens the doors for detailed evaluation.

Mixed methods and literature review
In relation to quantitative and qualitative methods, the role of the solo investigator is never considered inappropriate (Creswell, 2003). The mixed method approach is therefore more appropriate and plausible for studies which require vast resources and a large team of investigators. Qualitative methods such as the mixed method approaches have often been considered as a commonplace in social work research and their journals have circulated worldwide through annual conferences of the Society of Social Work and numerous Social Work Education programs. Mixed methods strategies involve triangulation of data, negative case analysis, peer debriefing and support, formulating and maintaining an audit trail, cross checking members and prolonged engagement. The goals and the designs of the study are the final deciding factors with regards to the choice and usage of such strategies, nonetheless, it has been noticed that the results are better if you make use of all the above mentioned strategies which unearthing a case study through mixed methods of input (Rossman & Wilson, 1994).

To determine the impact of a technological breakthrough on industry, Tushman and Anderson (1986) researched histories of domestic airlines, Portland cement manufactures, and minicomputer manufacturers. For each of the three industries, the author’s examined eight variables. Key features of data collection for the variables were via books, journals, government data, and trade journals. Prominent numeric data collection was start of industry, entry and exit dates, and dates of breakthroughs for the three industries. The author’s presented seven hypotheses in the introduction section. Technological breakthroughs are argued to be creators of environmental (i.e., strategic) uncertainty and munificence by the authors. These breakthroughs were tested to determine the effect on the three industries. Uncertainty refers to the degree the future can be predicted by the organization. Munificence refers to the capacity of a strategic environment to support growth (Tushman & Anderson, 1986). The author’s indicate data was collected on the variable uncertainty by comparing mean forecast error, a published statistic, five years before and five years after a technological breakthrough. Munificence of the products and services in the study were quantitatively determined by calculating inflation adjusted demand over various time periods.

The purpose of Tushman and Anderson (1986) relates to the positivist approach through its use of cause and effect, objectivity, hypotheses, and statistical tests. The variables are intertwined with the hypotheses. The cause of technological changes is studied to determine its effect. Results are fixed and measurable, unlike interpreting data of the qualitative approach. Data collection is driven by hypotheses, specific variables are established, and “predetermined approaches” focus the researcher on the one reality (Creswell, 2003, p. 19). Contrasted to the qualitative school where multiple realities exist and methods emerge. The epistemological assumptions of the post positivist were apparent in reading Tushman and Anderson in the author’s development of a theory, data collection, results, and discussion (1986). Ontologically, the post positivist has one reality – fixed, measurable, and objective (Capella University, n.d.). This is evident in Tushman and Anderson (1986) through a predetermined approach, numeric data, and statistical tests.

A mixed method approach is in reality a qualitative study, which requires a wide array of global standards (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A few women were interviewed on the basis of their childhood sexual abuse and the results were analyzed using all the six strategies of mixed method approach. This evidentiary adequacy included 220 hours of audio and video tapes, 24 hours of group cessions, 165 hours of interviews, 25 hours of follow up interactions lasting well over 6 months and finally 2000 pages of transcriptions, documents and field notes.

In order to study the anti-poverty experiment in Milwaukee, Northwestern University researcher, Greg J Duncan (Kuhn, 1961), made use of the mixed method approach to realize the truth, which revolved around the local street gangs and the sneakers. Had they restricted their research to just one research method, they would never have been able to fathom the truth. In the research, the evaluators made use of quantitative methods, through which they came to realize the disparities amongst the boys as well as the girls. The boy’s families which took active part in the program tended to fair better as regards to families which decided to steer clear of the research methodology. At the same time, in relation to wage supplements, insurance benefits and child support facilities, the girls seemed to fare better than the boys regardless of whether their families had enrolled for the research procedure or not. The puzzling disparity was revealed when the evaluators interviewed the parents of the families and were shocked to learn from the mothers that it was indeed the local street gangs who were responsible for luring young boys away from school in the pretext of buying them brand new sneakers. In a bid to counter those temptations, the mothers had to work extra in order to generate an additional income through which they could put their boys back on track, not the girls. Mr. Duncan’s mixed method research tactics led to the introduction of various methods through which evaluators could fathom the secrets of a case study. The strategy’s success led the U.S. Department of Education to adopt the methodology of the mixed method of researching and to conduct random field trials and assess the needs of classrooms and students. Hence, in order to measure the leadership in modern human resource environment, there is no parallel to the mixed method approach (Kuhn, 1961).

Recommended use of mixed methods
A mixed method is a procedure wherein an evaluator makes a judicious mix of both qualitative as well as quantitative methods, in order to reach a conclusion. When an entire body of research addresses a particular research question, the evaluator is stated to be making use of a mixed method of research (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). One of the main reasons why mixed methods are considered useful is because they tend to provide a solution which is based on collective search and not just a single case study (Creswell, 2003). Such group based interpretations, generate a report which is the resultant of multitudes of contributors. In relation to the cultural aspects, it has been noticed that the mixed method approach is the most suited. This is because culture is a subtotal of collective, shared and collaborative constructed processes, which in turn can only be described through the usage of mixed methods of research. The use of mixed methods in relation to cultural biases, keeps the general phenomenon intact which ensuring that it is suitably connected with the cultural elements of the researched topics. Likewise, Vygotsky’s rule is also adhered to by mankind judicious use of the levels of abstractness while moving the research process from abstract to concrete. Secondly, in order to explain a well-defined psychological phenomenon, you cannot make use of a set methodology as diverse cultures would harbor biases that can only be removed through the means of mixed methods approach .A mixed method approach involves the collection of data in a systematic form, which is ideally obtained by making use of the main method, before incorporating the collected ideologies into the base method. Mixed method designs are therefore methodological in nature. (Tashakkori &Teddlie, 2002).

Qualitative methods
Qualitative methods, as the name well suggests, refers to the method of data collection which is primarily concerned with the evaluation of leadership qualities that are pertinent for measuring the leadership qualities in a human being. There are three kinds of data collection methods used in a qualitative method. The first method is an in-depth, open ended interview, the second is a direct observation and the third is written documents, including sources such as personal diaries, questionnaire and program records (Creswell, 2003). Through the means of data collection open ended interviews, which include direct quotations through the means of interview cessions, knowledge, feelings and opinions, the final analysis is exacting in nature. Through detailed description of program activities, the data from observations consists of participant behavior, a complete motion of human interactions and staff actions, which can then be merged into the entire program. Excerpts, quotations, correspondence, passages from records, open ended surveys and official reports, make up for document analysis. At the very outset, a qualitative evaluation begins with the collection of raw data, which in turn is a descriptive information regarding the programs as well as the people in the program. In order to make a first hand evaluation, the evaluator has to visit the programs and engage personally in those activities by donning the hat of a participant observer. The experiences and perceptions of the participants are then noted by the interviewer through a detailed interview session. Thereafter, the records and documents are also examined by the evaluator, after which, the data from the observations, interviews and documents are organized into systematic themes, case studies and related categories. This is only possible through content analysis. The end result is a near perfect evaluation of the leadership qualities in an individual or a team (Herman, 1987).

The result of qualitative evaluation
A basic quality evaluation report, provides a detailed description of program descriptions along with its implementations, a detailed analysis of all the major program procedures, a detailed description of the various kinds of participants and the various kinds of participations, a detailed description of how the program has affected the involved participants, the observed changes, the impacts, the outcomes, a detailed analysis of the strengths and the weaknesses of the program and finally, inputs from the people interviewed, which include, the participants, the fenders, the informants of the society and finally, the staff members (Fowler, 2002). Whenever the evaluation of data has to take place, evaluators prefer to include a suitable combination of both qualitative as well as quantitative methods for better results. Recent studies have shown that researchers prefer making use of multiple methods to evaluate the leadership qualities in a human resource environment. This includes a judicious mix of both qualitative as well as quantitative methods. The overall validity of qualitative methods depends upon the methodological skills, the level of training of the evaluator and level of sensitivity. A rigorous evaluation procedure involves far more that asking a few questions or looking around for relevant data, or looking for information through researched papers. A suitable qualitative evaluation involves the generation of data through interview sessions, observations, disciplined content analysis, knowledge base, training, hard work and consistent practice sessions. Data evaluation strategies depend on who the information is for, who would be making use of the findings, the kind of information required to execute the process, the purpose of evaluation, the usage of information, the time of information gathering and finally, the various kinds of resources available for conducting the evaluation procedure (Herman,1987).

When to use qualitative observations
Qualitative methods are not appropriate for all situations and all evaluation questions cannot be answered through this method. Listed below is a checklist which decides whether qualitative methods are appropriate for evaluation or not (Herman, 1987): (1) individualized outcomes, in terms of participations are a part of qualitative approaches. Participants affected in quantitative ways and where decisions are based on individualized client’s outcomes, are appropriately measured by qualitative observations, (2) case studies which involve the evaluation of program strengths, weaknesses and the overall process, with regards to the internal dynamics of the programs, are also most suited for qualitative methods, (3) in depth information for client based researches, in relation to particularly successful cases, unprecedented failures and critical cases pertaining to programmatic, political or financial reasons, are ideal for qualitative measurements, (4) whenever individual clients have to be described through their unique qualities, through the location of unity in diversity and where standardization and uniform methods are of no use, qualitative methods are best suited in analyzing the results, (5) when the research requires experienced analysis, evaluation of services, organization of programs, functionality of the staff members and the details of the decision making procedures, the need for qualitative methods is considered imperative, (6) when the research requires detailed and descriptive information about the program, with the purpose of improvising the program through formative evaluation, a qualitative method is considered imperative, (7) whenever the research procedures require the nuances of the program quality, a qualitative method is considered most effective. Here, levels, amounts and quantities are superseded by the descriptive information regarding the quality of program activities and their qualitative results, and (8) when the research analysis is in need for a quality assurance system, which is case specific, then a qualitative method is considered of vital importance.

While planning an evaluation through qualitative methods, researchers need to look for the conceptual as well as the technical issues. The overall thought process which is involved in the process of evaluation is analyzed through the means of conceptual issues. Conceptual issues relate to the process of negotiating with participants, including stakeholders, information users and decision makers. The conceptual issues can be initiated by the evaluator but they cannot necessarily be unilaterally dictated by the evaluator. In order to improve the credibility of the evaluation procedure, the use of conceptual evaluation is considered imperative (Herman, 1987)

The requirements of qualitative directions
For the evaluative decision to reach a qualitative end, the evaluator needs to derive the right kind of interest in the descriptive area, needs to have focus on interactions and process, needs to understand the exploratory nature of the problem, take a closer look at individualized experiences and problems and ascertain which variable would be most suited to fulfill the interaction (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). When taking the example of describing the overall achievement and the leadership quality of a human resource individual, the evaluator needs to decide as to what is the right amount of detailing and probing is essential in deciding upon the evaluation criteria. In this scenario, qualitative methods need to emphasize on the depth and details of the evaluation procedure. As against quantitative methods, which use relatively large samples and few questions, qualitative methods aim at obtaining information from relatively few cases. According to a human relation specialist, you can never really ascertain the real experience of the other person. In order to get to a conclusion, an evaluator needs to make use of an open ended interviewing procure, which in turn would result in volumes of narrative data (Herman,1987).

Use of analysis in qualitative evaluation
In the case of qualitative analysis, the evaluator has to mould the approach of the research from the point of view of events, occurrences and incidents. For example, a quality assurance effort in relation to analyzing the leadership quality in a human relations approach may pay adequate attention towards only those critical incidences which are known the world over for accessing the leadership quality of an individual. This could be through the means of a holistic analysis. Qualitative methods focus their analysis directly on the unit, which could either be a program, a group or a unity. While using qualitative techniques in order to ascertain the leadership qualities in a modern human resource environment, the evaluator needs to have sufficient time to interact with the participants as well as having an in depth knowledge about the program itself, as this would allow the qualitative evaluator to obtain an in depth knowledge about the program. Secondly, the qualitative examiner is also supposed to provide a suitable answer and a practical explanation to what is being discussed and collected during the overall process of evaluation (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Thirdly, in relation to people, activities and interactions, the evaluator is supposed to provide a great deal of pure description. Last but not the least; it is the evaluator’s duty to capture the direct quotes of participants, both in terms of written as well as verbal formats. The observation skills of the observer are of vital importance as face to face conversation is directly dependent on the observation skills of the interviewer. During the course of program participation, it is indeed the skill set of the participation observer, which would prove to be the deciding factor when an analysis needs to be drawn on the basis of both the formal as well as informal data sources (Herman, 1987).

The quantitative research methods
Quantitative method is a research methodology which is focused on the collection and analysis of statistical data and numerical findings. A quantitative method does not rely upon interviews, mail questionnaires, observations, reports, case studies and focus groups. A quantitative method clearly states that social phenomenon can be measured and analyzed in a numerical fashion and it can therefore be quantified (Fowler, 2002). A social phenomenon can be expressed in numerical terms and then analyzed statistically, the observations are in the form of numeric variables and the data matrix is the starting point for the analysis. A quantitative approach is therefore subject to a scientific investigation wherein quantitative phenomenon and their relationships are studied with ease. Quantitative analysis is based on applying and developing mathematical models, including theories and hypothesis, which in turn pertain to the natural phenomenon. The overall measurement procedure is central to the quantitative approach, as it provides a valid connection between empirical observations and mathematical expressions, which in turn provide the basis of quantitative relationships. The use of quantitative research is based on various parameters, which include social sciences, natural sciences, biology, sociology, physics and journalism. In relation to education, a quantitative method can often be used to analyze various aspects of education. The use of quantitative research is often in the sphere of social sciences, which in reality is fairly different from the methodologies of the qualitative approach. Quantitative approach is a methodology through which, evidences are evaluated, theories as well as hypothesis are streamlined and finally, technical advances are provided with a finishing touch. In order to quantify physical sciences, the use of quantitative methods is considered of vital importance (Kuhn, 1961).

A quantitative method would necessarily consist of models, hypothesis and theories. It would also include methods used for measurements and instruments primarily used for the development of research. Likewise, it is an experimental control system through which the evaluator can manipulate variables in favor of a definite conclusion (Creswell, 2003). Quantitative data is also considered to be a storehouse of empirical data and it is mainly based on the modeling and analysis of the procured data. In the end, quantitative methods are essential and imperative for evaluating data in its purest forms. Through the means of scientific disciplines in relation to anatomy and taxonomy, quantitative analysis and analytical analysis, an evaluator can be helped to reach to a definite conclusion. The role of statistics is of vital importance whenever an evaluator is scheduled to evaluate and analyze data in its original format (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). In relation with biology, economics and social sciences, the usage of statistical data, in relation to the quantitative approach is supposed to be the most effective form of presenting a quantitative opinion based solely on an open ended survey. Measurement also plays an important role in the overall decision making process and henceforth, it has been noted that quantitative methods make use of numerical data as it allows the evaluation process to become more sterile (Kuhn, 1961). Quantitative searches are therefore symbolic to social sciences and are mainly used in the field which requires numerical analysis. A few examples of such approaches would include biology, economics and mathematical researches. When considering the application of quantitative method in analyzing the leadership qualities in a modern human resource scenario, you cannot hope to reach a decisive conclusion.

Methods in quantitative research
Whenever an evaluator needs to research on a topic which requires a numerical analysis, the approach which is best suited to analyze the results in an effective manner is the quantitative methodology. Quantitative methods make effective use of graphs, tables and statistics to present the results in an appropriate manner. In relation with sciences such as physics and biology, the application of quantitative methods is considered most effective while trying to analyze and draw an appropriate conclusion. At the same time, some researchers are on the opinion that in such circumstances, even qualitative methods are supposedly effective and quite irrelevant in their approach. When the area of decision making is gathered around sociology, psychology and social anthropology, researchers differ in their opinion and while some clearly advocate the usage of qualitative methods, other are in favor of the quantitative methods (Fowler, 2003). Regardless of the opinions, in certain global scenarios such as, the measurement of the human resource leadership qualities in the present scenario, evaluators prefer to choose and make use of mixed methods of research. Quantitative searches are applicable in scenarios wherein evaluators are supposed to measure the elements in the earth’s atmosphere and preset them in terms of percentages, conduct a survey which involves the total number of man hours a patient needs to waste in the waiting room before the doctor finally arrives or conduct a survey wherein two groups are given two different tablets and the analysis is based on the numerical effect of the medications on both the groups. Quantitative methods are used in the fields of marketing wherein the evaluator is required to assess the scope of a business on the basis of product, price, place and promotion (Kuhn, 1961).

A comparison of quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methods
In the context of social research, there has often been a heated dialogue regarding the effectiveness of a quantitative method in social research. Most females are of the opinion that quantitative approach is of little use when the need of the hour is to get the facts organized in an appropriate manner (Fonow & Cook, 1991). When the information is classified into categories which are predefined by the researchers, the actual voice of the participant is often bogged under numerical data and hence, this distortion can often bring about a major change in the final evaluation procedure. While people who defend quantitative methods clearly state those researchers who are biased in nature, would prove to soil the records by taking advantage of qualitative methods of research. In relation to methodologies that are related to females, there has been a mixed response of sorts and while some women have categorically stated that quantitative methods need to be ignored and replaced with qualitative methods, others are of the opinion that quantitative methods are unbiased and methodical in their approach (Fonow & Cook, 1991). In relation to feminist goals and ideologies, it would be appropriate to state that quantitative methods are of vital importance and are much more relevant as compared to the contemporary methods of research, which happen to project feminist values through an antithetical approach (Fonow & Cook, 1991). The biggest advantage of using a quantitative method is the end result. It is a humanitarian approach which clearly acknowledges the emotional quotient in a human being and is therefore less mechanical in nature. It helps improves the relationship between the researcher and the researched. The goal to find out more about people is best achieved when both the interviewers as well as the interviewee are related to each other in a nonhierarchical manner and where a conclusion is drawn on the basis of a personal identification of the interviewer (Fonow & Cook, 1991).

While mixed methodology considers the mixed use of both qualitative and quantitative methods to reach a scientific conclusion, qualitative analysis involves the process of “making sense of data that is not expressed in numbers” (Tesch (1990) as cited by Mohrman, Gibson, & Mohrman Jr., 2001, p. 363) and quantitative methods presents results in the form of words or themes and does not use hypotheses. A unique use of qualitative methodology is the use and purpose of data collection procedures which relates to the interpretivist / social constructivist philosophic assumptions (1) ontologically in multiple realities and social construction by the individuals, and (2) are epistemologically dependent on the observer through interaction to understand the participants’ realities (Creswell, 2003). The researcher looks for the multiple, subjective views in the natural environment of the organization, collecting data and making observations. The interpretation of data is filtered through the “personal lens” (Creswell, pp. 181-182) of the researcher. The qualitative researcher’s preference of “meaning (versus measurement)” in purpose and data collection supports multiple realities and observing in a natural environment in the traditions of interpretivism and social constructivism (Gephart, 1999). The qualitative methodology uses case study, while its data presentation uses text versus numerical data. Interviews and documentation is the approach to data collection to fulfill the purpose of qualitative study. The basic philosophy of qualitative research is subjective. The interpretation is molded by the researcher’s own experiences and background (Creswell, 2003) and the researcher makes sense of the world through interpretation and then develops a theory.

Research validity and reliability
The above three research methods qualitative, quantitative and mixed all contribute to various methods of collecting data. The quality of a research study depends to a large extent on the accuracy of the data collection procedures. That is, the instruments or tools used to collect the data must yield the type of data the researcher can use to accurately answer his /her questions. Whether one is using a self developed questionnaire, interview schedule, observation checklist or standardized test, the data so obtained must be pertinent to the research hypotheses. In research, a researcher needs to maximize the reliability and validity of the data collected (Creswell, 2003). According to Creswell, validity of research, data collection and instruments needs to be meaningful so a researcher can draw useful inferences for his/her scientific inquiry (Creswell, 2003).

Conclusion
The overall purpose of any research methodology is to draw a conclusion which is both unbiased and capable of discovering the truth about the discipline. While a quantitative approach has its strengths and weaknesses, it has often been considered essential for projects which require a final analysis on the basis of numerical data. When the argument is to consider an appropriate approach to measure the leadership qualities pertinent to the modern human resource approach, the answer could be evaluated through any of the three methods. While a quantitative approach would provide an unbiased analysis based on numerical facts and figures, a qualitative approach on the other hand would provide a more concise data as it is based on case studies, interviews and questionnaires. In such a scenario, the best approach to be able to judge the true leadership qualities of an individual in a modern human resource environment, would be by adopting the methodologies of both the quantitative as well as the qualitative methods. Henceforth, a mixed method approach is often considered the best and the also most effective, in a scenario that requires both numerical as well as human relations data. In the above chapters, the discussion has been clearly based on the meanings, advantages and drawbacks of all three methods, namely mixed method approach, qualitative method approach and quantitative method approach. When the question revolves around measuring the leadership qualities which are pertinent to the modern human resource environment, the most appropriate research methodology to evaluate the truth would undoubtedly be the mixed method research tool.

References
Allen, S. J. (2008). A hunt for the missing 50 cents: One piece of the leadership
development puzzle. Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 19-29. Retrieved
April 30, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1430205841).

Anthony, H., Robert, N., Paul, B., & Jamie, E. (2008).Telecommunicating and corporate
culture: Implications for the mobile enterprise. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 7(4), 65. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Ammeter, A. P., & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Leadership, Team Building, and team member
characteristics in high performance project teams. Engineering Management
Journal, 14, 3-10.

Arthur, D.G. (2009).Distance Learning Bridges Knowledge Gap. Ophthalmology Times, 34(6),64. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from Academic Search Premier Database

Baker, S.D. (2006). The effect of leader-follower agreement on team effectiveness.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 6, (03), A. (UMI No. 3209933)

Baker, S. D., & Gerlowski, D. A. (2007). Team effectiveness and leader-follower
agreement: An empirical study. Journal of American Academy of Business,Cambridge, 12(1), 15-23. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1288121701).

Bass, B.M. (1985). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational
leadership. Alexandria, VA: US Army Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-36.

Bowles, M. (1997). The myth of management: Direction and failure in contemporary
organization. Human Relations, 50, 779-803.

Brenda, L. (2009). Higher education research & development. Education Journal, 28
(3), 261- 74. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from academic search premier database.

Buckley, M. R., Kicza, D. C., & Crane, N. (1987). A note on the effectiveness of flextime as an organizational intervention. Public Personnel Management, 16 (3), 259 – 268.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX Houghton Mifflin.

Cannon, W.B. (1929). Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Review,9, 339-429.

Caldwell, D. (1978). Employee motivation under merit system. Public Personnel Management, 7 (1), 65.

Capella University. (2008). Story grammar for research articles. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://courseroom2002.capella.edu/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/OM8021/Course_Files/cf_Research_Article_Story_Grammar.pdf

Capella University. (n.d.). The importance of methodology. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://courseroom2002.capella.edu/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/OM8021/Course_Files/cf_Importance_of_Methodology_Rev_2707.ppt

Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership-powered company. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). "Validity." In T.D. Cook and D.T. Campbell.
Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin, pp. 37-94.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods. New York: McGraw- Hill/Irwin.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Deborah, P. (2009).Social Work. Personnel Journal, 54 (2), 101-105. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from academic search premier database.

Elbing, A. O., Gardon, H., & Gordon, J. R. M. (1975). Flexible working hours: The missing link. California Management Review, 13(3), 50 – 57.

Ethridge, D. E. (2004). Research methodology in applied economics: Organizing, Planning,and conducting economic research. Wiley- Blackwell.

Fields, C. J. (1974). Variable Working Hours – The Money Experience. Personnel Journal 53(9), 675- 678.

Fleuter, D. L. (1975) Flextime – A social phenomenon. Personnel Journal, 54(6), 318 –319.

Fonow, M. & Cook, J. (1991). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived
research. Indiana State: Indiana University Press.

Fowler, F. J. Jr. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

French, F., Andrew, J., Awramenko, M., & Coutts, H. (2005). General practitioner non-
principals benefit from flexible working. Journal of Health Organization and
Management, 19(1), 5-15. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 850337341).

George, P. (1996). Telecommuting advantages. Training & Development, 50(2), 22.Retreieved May 2, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Gephart, R. (1999) Paradigms and research methods. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Golden, T. & Veiga, J (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction:Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31 (2) 310- 312.

Graham, J. W. (1988). Transformational leadership: Fosterin follower autonomy, Not
automatic followership. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, Valerie, J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). "Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation design." Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255-74.

Haar, J. M. (2007). Exploring the benefits and use of flexitime: Similarities and
differences. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 4(1), 69.
Retrieved April 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document
ID: 1226781541).

Harrick, E. J., Vanek, G. R., & Michlitsch, J. F. (1986). Alternate work schedules, productivity, leave usage and employee attitudes: A field study. Public Personnel Management, 15 (2), 159 – 170.

Herman, J. (1987). Program evaluation kit. California: Sage Publications.

Harvey, B., & Luthans, F. (1979) Flextime: An empirical analysis of its really meaning and impact. MSU Business Topics, 27 (3), 31.

Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1981). The impact of flextime on employee attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 333. Retrieved April 21,2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 941378).

Hodge, B.J., Anthony, W. P., Gales, L. M. (2003). Organization theory: A strategic approach. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Homrig, M. A. (2001). Transformational leadership. New York, McGraw Hill
James, P. (2008). Transformational leadership: Practicing what we teach in the management classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 2-6. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Jens, R. (2008). Effects of Transactional and Transformational leadership. Pastoral Psychology, 56(4), 403-411 Retrieved April 22, Academic Search Premier Database.

John, H. (2009) Liberate Home workers. National review, 61(2), 24. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Jr, N & Joseph, S. (2008) Transformational leaders are not always better. Christian science Monitor, 100(86), 9. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from Academic search premier database.

Johnson, J. (2004). Flexible working: Changing the manager’s role. Management decision 42(5/6), 721-737. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database
(Document ID:6730158661).

Kibkabe, A. (2009). Give you commute the boot. Essence, 39(11), 72. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. CA: Jossey Bass.
Larson, N., & Jerry, S. (2009). Transformational leadership. Independent school, 68(3), 5-8. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from Academic Search Primer Database.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mamia, T. (2006) Quantative research methods: General studies. NY: Mcgraw-Hill.

Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2003). The disruptive nature of information technology
innovations: The case of Internet computing in systems development organizations. MIS Quarterly, 27, 557-595.


Mica, C. (2008) Leadership do's and don'ts. Fire engineering, 161(4), 215-217. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Michael, L. (2009).The people-less office.T+D, Personnel Journal, 63(4), 24. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to
leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human
Relations, 58(10), 1323-1350. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from ABI/INFORM

Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman Jr, A. M. (2001). Doing research that is useful to practice a model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 357- 375.

McGuire, J. B., & Liro, J. R. (1986). Flexible work schedules, Work attitudes and perceptions of productivity. Public personnel management, 15 (1).

Murphey, D. D. (2006). Seeing Africa clearly. Review of the journal of social,
political, and economic studies, 31(2), 213-224. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1151105741).

Myers, D.G.(1987).Yin and yang in psychological research and Christian belief. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 1987,39, 128-39.

Narayanan, V. K., & Nath, R. (1982). Hierarchical level and the impact of flextime. Industrial Relations Journal: Berkeley, 21(2), 216.

Orpen, C. (1981). Effect of flexible working hours on employee satisfaction and performance: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 113 –115

Pierce, L. J., & Newstrom, W J. (1980). Toward a conceptual clarification of employee responses to flexible working hours: A work adjustment approach. Journal of Management, 6(2), 117-134.

Peiers, B. (1997).Informed traders, Intervention and price leadership: A deeper view of the microstructure of the foreign exchange market. The Journal of finance, 52(4), 1589-1592

Perez, P., Sanchez, A.M., & Carnicer, M. (2003).Top management and institutional effects on the adoption of innovations: The case of teleworking. Prometheus, 21(1), 4-16.Reterieved April 23, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Rainey, G. W., Jr., & Wolf, L. (1981). Flex-Time: Short-term benefits: Long-term…?. Public Administration Review, 41(1), 52

Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organization Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Robert, V., Joseph, J., & Craig, P. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 72- 82. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Robin, F. (2009). Adolescence. Family Journal, 44(173), 33-54.Retrevied April 28, 2009,from academic search premier database.

Rossman., G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1994). "Numbers and words revisited: Being
'shamelessly eclectic'." Quality and Quantity, 28, pp. 315-327.

Shen, J., Cox, A., & McBride, A. (2004). Factors influencing turnover and retention of midwives and consultants: a literature review. Health Services Management Research, 17(4), 249-62. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 750342051).

Sorohan, G. E. (1994). Telecomuniting takes off. Training and development, 48(9), 3-5.Retrieved April 29, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2002). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research. Sage Publications.

Tricia, M. (2005). Personal view of telecommuting. Online, 29(5), 25. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from academic search premier database.

Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.

Viadero, D. (2005). Mixed methods research examined. The home of Education Week and Teacher Magazine, 24 (20), 1,124.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.