Emotional Intelligence Scale

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In ordinary life, man works and lives in a world where he continuously is confronted with problems, which are usually solved through problem solving thought processes. Behaviour is adapted or new behaviour patterns are learned and adopted in order to live a normal life.
Mouton (2001) refers to this as the world of everyday life and lay knowledge. However, there is another world, the second world according to Mouton, where man takes phenomena from everyday life and systematically finds the truth about it through processes of science and scientific research and develops the truth into theories. Theories are developed for others to build on and to be proven as correct or to be rejected on the grounds of empirical evidence (Lutz, 1983; Mouton, 2001).
Mouton (2001) lastly refers to a third world, namely a world of metascience. The third world goes beyond the scientific truth where new paradigms and philosophies are developed and confirmed. These paradigms and philosophies guide scientific research processes and form the basis of all new knowledge formation (Mouton, 2001). Refer to Figure 3.1 for Mouton’s summary of this in a basic framework.
Lutz (1983) briefly refers to the stages of development in the Western world’s research philosophy. First the church was displaced as the source of secular truth. Then, developing from philosophy, the natural sciences could stand on their own research feet with their traditional research model (or the scientific research model) with phases of theory evaluation, hypothesis, measurement, data collection, analysis, and hypothesis testing and theory formation. The social sciences developed from the natural sciences and started to provide independent scientific knowledge.
The development of the independent social sciences meant that empirical data was made available to serve as evidence when the validity of social problems or social research results was determined (Lutz, 1983). On grounds of empirical data, research results could be verified independently. The fact that the social sciences under certain circumstances adhere to the research methods of the natural sciences is referred to as a form of positivism (Bailey, 1982). This, however, is an ongoing debate. Early views on this issue were that of Emile Durkheim, who believed that social phenomena are orderly and could therefore be generalized. According to Mouton (1993), Durkheim believed that social facts, which refer to all social phenomena that exist independently of the individual’s influence sphere, are equal to that of the facts of the natural sciences in as far as they exert external influence on the individual (Mouton, 1993). Hughes (1990) interprets Durkheim’s social facts construct as criteria to use when objectively investigating social phenomena as if they were physical facts. Especially the scientific method of experimentation could be used to explain social observable facts, according to Durkheim. This view is in sharp contrast to the view of Dilthey, who believes that human behaviour is unpredictable and nothing could be generalized about it (Bailey, 1982).
According to Bailey (1982), Max Weber suggested an intermediate approach. Weber believed that the scientific research method had a role to play in social research, but that it was insufficient. Bailey (1982) further reflected the views of Weber as that the social sciences also needed a research method that could facilitate direct understanding (Verstehen) and which again could not be used in the natural sciences because of a different relationship between researcher and research data.
Modern-day social scientists believe that social phenomena are indeed orderly enough to be able to predict. To do this, social sciences should try to find actual causes for the researched phenomena, which is unrealistic. Ultimately, casual explanation would be the best alternative for the natural sciences’ actual cause research goal (Bailey, 1982).
The above-mentioned views are not to express the positivism debate in its fullest consequences. It merely serves to introduce the argument that the social sciences work hard to prove that their own research philosophy and research method can deliver empirical results that are based on direct experience and that can be independently verified (Lutz, 1992), and with which social phenomena can be investigated, described and solved to add value to man’s everyday life.

The Research Approach

Qualitative or quantitative approach?

Robert Burns emphasizes that the core difference between qualitative and quantitative is their “disagreement about the simplification of reality” (Burns, 2000:12). The following table depicts the difference between the two approaches according to Eisner (Burns, 2000)
Burns (2000) views the strengths and limitations of the two different approaches as follows:

Strength of the quantitative approach

This approach uses reliable measurements, control of which is achieved through sampling and design. In the natural sciences this method is used to determine causation of phenomena, which can be proven through testing of hypotheses. This testing is done through the deductive process, which produces data that can be statistically analysed.

Limitations of the quantitative approach

When this approach is used in social science research, the focus on human behaviour complicates the hypothetical predictions that are set. Social behaviour cannot be investigated in a controlled experimental environment. Because this approach therefore cannot be totally objective, its generalizations cannot always be made true for all people (Burns, 2000).

Strengths of the qualitative approach

The results of the investigation are often unexpected, because the researcher is much more personally involved in the process and has an insider view of the field. It is usually possible to suggest different relationships from the results. The research report is narrative as opposed to the statistical nature of the quantitative approach (Burns, 2000).

Limitations of the qualitative approach

The qualitative approach is criticized by followers of the quantitative method for inadequate validity and reliability of its measuring methods. Because of the inadequate measurements, it is difficult to apply conventional standards (Burns, 2000). The context in which the data is gathered cannot be replicated, nor can the results be generalized. The approach has a strong subjective nature and has the potential to be biased. It usually takes time for the researcher to establish a relationship of trust with the respondents and it is difficult to guarantee the anonymity of those participating in the research (Burns, 2000).

The Scientific Model

Based on the qualitative process, the scientific model of Wallace has been widely used and referred to (Baker, 1994). The process model is depicted figure 3.2
The deductive part of the process starts with theories on top of the model. Wallace (Baker, 1994) suggested first to scrutinize the theory to establish its suitability to deliver the envisaged results. Thereafter the deductive process may begin. Then hypotheses as a form of prediction are set (Baker, 1994). These predictions are used to determine and confirm the actual observations that will be made rather “than for predicting the actual outcome of such observations” (Baker, 1994: 57). Again the importance of the hypotheses that are set lies in the specification of the measurements that will be used to test the theory. Then the sample is chosen so that it will represent the population the best. The final step in the process is to decide whether to accept or reject the hypotheses. If the results confirm what was expected from the hypotheses, it is accepted and rejected if the results cannot support the hypotheses. The process may be repeated if the results stimulate the creation of new hypotheses that were not anticipated in the beginning (Baker, 1994).
The inductive part of the model will not be used and will therefore not be discussed.

Research Paradigm

According to Bailey (1982), researchers have certain values or a prior logical-rational model (Baker, 1994) that predisposes them to a particular paradigm. As an example, Bailey lists some of the social paradigms as follows
The current research will follow the quantitative approach. It was decided to make use of a survey to collect the data, and the data will be analysed statistically. As indicated by Bailey in the table above, the strength of this process lies in the reliability of the measurements. In this case, four existing developed measurements are used. The formulated research questions that will guide the research will be tested through a deductive process, meaning that the hypotheses are deduced from generalized theory (Burns, 1983). This approach will allow statistical analysis and the following techniques will be used:
Factor analysis using the Oblique procedure and then evaluated by means of a confirmatory factor analysis

• Intercorrelation to determine relationships;
• A multiple-regression analysis, and
• A structural equations model to confirm the theoretical model.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES 
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The problem and its significance
1.3 The scope of the research
1.4 Research objectives.
1.5 Study outline
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE STUDY 
2.1 Organizational Climate
2.1.1 Introduction
2.2 Team Climate
2.2.1 Definitional issues .
2.2.2 Defining climate.
2.2.3 Individual perception vs an aggregated team perception
2.2.4 Generic or facet specific
2.2.5 TCI four factor theory
2.2.6 Vision
2.2.7 Participative safety
2.2.8 Task orientation
2.2.9 Support for Innovation
2.3 Summary
2.4 Emotional Intelligence
2.4.1 Introduction
2.4.2 Intelligence
2.4.3 Emotions
2.4.4 Emotional Intelligence: An introduction
2.4.5 Emotional Intelligence defined
2.5 Salovey and Mayer
2.5.1 Appraisal and Expression
2.6 Bar-on
2.7 Goleman
2.8 Comparing the three models
2.9 Assesment
2.10 Summary
2.11 Exchange Processes in Teams
2.12 Team Goal Orientation
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Research Approach
3.3 The Design
3.4 The Questionnaire .
3.5 Emotional Intelligence Scale
3.6 Respondents
3.7 Techniques and Procedures
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 
4.1 Factor Analysis
4.2 Analytical procedure
4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.4 Factor Structure for Emotional Intelligence Scale
4.5 Factor Structure of Team Member Exchange Quality
4.6 Factor Structure of Goal Orientation.
4.7 Factor Structure of Team Climate Inventory (TCI)
4.8 Correlations
4.9 Path analysis
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research Question One
5.3 Research Question Two
5.4 Research question three.
5.5 Research question four
5.6 Research question five
5.7 Limitations of the present study
5.8 Contributions of the present study
5.9 Possible significance for organizations and teams
5.10 Recommendations for future research
REFERENCES
ANNEXURE
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT