Contextuational Differences In Qualitative Research

Research and theory building is a systematic investigation, where the researchers aim to seek answers to a problem posed. Research in the professional Social Sciences areas, such as the development of Psychology of Leadership, has largely shadowed the traditional objective scientific method, ergo, the quantitative research approach (Stentz, Clark, & Matkin, 2012). However, in more recent years, there has been a strong shift towards using a more naturalistic and subjective methodology. This gave rise to a divide in the realm of social science research, pitting the methodologies of qualitative research against that of quantitative research.

Qualitative research methodologies take on an idiographic tone, and emphasize the importance of including

This process aims to provide at least some contextual description of the research, for the readers. Along with this, new guidelines posited by Levitt et. al. (2018) also encourages the exemplification of the analytic process. As a result of situational differences in every research, social and cultural contexts would vary. On top of that, the provision of some contextual description of the research would lower the risks of the readers misinterpreting the study and consequently, the results. Thus, contextualization is the key to revealing the various context in which a particular research lies in. This is important in the development of the psychology of leadership research and theory building because the setting of the research could be different, and hence possibly resulting in different sets of results altogether. For instance, the trait perspective in leadership research could either be done in a lab setting or in a workplace setting, both of which would have observed different implications on the results. Doing such a research in a lab setting would see the subject being more uptight and unnatural, as compared to a workplace setting whereby it is a more natural environment. The differences in results could lead to the lack of external validity, and poor replication of

Transparent reporting contributes to the length of the manuscript. The length of the manuscript is merely a demonstrative rhetoric. It only serves the purpose of showing the authors’ train of thoughts, and showing the readers to why and how a certain result was derived, and how it was justified. In a research with a longer manuscript, the authors could include complete sets of data, coding, and analysis, visible to all the readers. With a longer length of manuscript, comes increased transparent reporting of the research. This allows for an open and understandable research; in which it is highly