Qualitative Research Approaches for Leadership Insight

Parker
The practical implications of the author’s conclusions are that research into leadership can be challenging because of the emphasis on quantitative studies in the field and the sense that any new studies must innovative and unique, even though it can be quite challenging to obtain permission for studies like this (Bryman, 2011). One of the important take-aways from the author’s notes is that qualitative research should not be so despised by researchers because it can provide insightful understanding on the topic of leadership and thus an over-reliance on questionnaires and surveys could be limiting the field in terms of discovering new knowledge that could improve practices in the field of leadership.
An example that might clarify or support the author’s claim is not really given. Instead, the author focuses on supporting arguments with references to other authors and quoting those authors in full. This is why Abendstern et al. (2019) are quoted along with Munthe-Kass et al. (2019). These might have seen like scholarly examples used to support the author’s claim, but perhaps real world examples might have served the purpose better. For instance, instead of relying on other scholarly references to make a point, a simple example of what is meant could have served to bring home the essence of the conclusion. An example could have been something like: Researcher A wants to conduct a study on leadership using qualitative methods. Researcher B wants to research leadership using quantitative methods. Researcher A selects a case study approach and easily obtains permission to interview a leader of an organization that has been very successful in its field in recent years. Researcher B has a much more difficult time obtaining permission to conduct the quantitative study based on the complexity of the approach selected. This is an example of why qualitative research can be useful.
References
Abendstern, M., Davies, K., Chester, H., Clarkson, P., Hughes, J., Sutcliffe, C., Poland, F., & Challis, D. (2019). Applying a new concept of embedding qualitative research: an example from a quantitative study of carers of people in later stage dementia. BMC Geriatrics, 19(1), 227.     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1240-x
Bryman, A. (2011). The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage.
Munthe-Kaas, H. M., Glenton, C., Booth, A., Noyes, J., & Lewin, S. (2019). Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 113.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0728-6
Sweeny
The writing relies heavily upon Bryman (2011) as a main source. While the information is good and relevant to the discussion, which focuses on questionnaire studies, discourse analysis and meta-analysis, most of the information comes from the Bryman (2011) source. Other authors are also used to support the discussion and they include Johannesson (2010) and Sharpe and Poets (2020). However, they do appear to be rather tacked on as the full quotes used in the discussion come primarily from the Bryman source.
Nonetheless, the quotes are supportive and the evidence noted does support the author’s claim. There is no real need for additional scholarly support to validate what is stated in the writing. Bryman’s (2011) remarks are not inaccurate, and the discussion on each of the topics (except for the questionnaire studies) is supported by multiple scholarly references. Another reference could be used on the questionnaire studies paragraph, but that is the only place that one seems missing if one is going to look for diversity of sources.
There does not seem to be needed a different perspective on the author’s statement as offered because the statement is mainly informative and the author is not making any bold claims that could be taken as controversial. The author is simply explaining what questionnaire studies are, what discourse analysis is and what meta-analysis is. There is no reason to feel that additional perspectives on these matters are required unless one wanted to get more in-depth into the pros and cons of each. This is the only instance in which it might be argued that additional perspectives would be warranted.
References
Bryman, A. (2011). The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage.
Johannesson, I. A. (2010). The Politics of Historical Discourse Analysis: A Qualitative Research Method? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596301003679768
Sharpe, D., & Poets, S. (2020). Meta-analysis as a response to the replication crisis. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000215