Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices Jane E. Stentz a, ⁎, Vicki L. Plano Clark b , Gina S. Matkin a a Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA b Department of Educational Studies, University of Cincinnati, USA article info abstract Article history: Received 21 May 2012 Received in revised form 20 September 2012 Accepted 3 October 2012 Available online xxxx Leadership research has a long history of a quantitative approach, and it remains the most commonly used approach among leadership researchers. Researchers in a variety of fields have been applying mixed methods designs to their research as a way to advance theory. Mixed methods designs are used for collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies to both explain and explore specific research questions. This article provides a review of the basic characteristics of mixed methods designs. A broad series of leadership approaches is offered to help emphasize how the application of mixed methods designs have already been applied and where they might be directed in future research. Our review of articles published in the Leadership Quarterly between 1990 and June 2012 revealed a slight occurrence of existing application of mixed methods designs to leadership research. Of the articles reviewed, only 15 studies were found to represent mixed methods research, according to our conceptual framework. The overall intent of this article is to highlight the value of purposeful application of mixed methods designs toward advancing leadership theory and/or theoretical thinking about leadership phenomena. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mixed methods Quantitative Qualitative Leadership 1. Introduction “Because the issues relating to leadership cut across all types of human activity and thought, true understanding of such a complex phenomenon requires a broadly conceived approach.” J. Thomas Wren, The Leader's Companion, 1995 The nature of leadership involves the exercise of influence (Yukl, 2006) and can be described as a complex, multi-faceted form of performance that does not exist unless something happens (Mumford, 2011). It is the very nature of leadership as a complex, multi-level, and socially constructed process (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010) that makes it a phenomenon of great interest, but also one that is a challenge to study. These complexities can be embraced and celebrated as positive challenges or grieved as overwhelming impossibilities. As Wren's use of the phrase “a broadly conceived approach” seems to imply, they might be best addressed through something more than a single approach, such as the use of multiple theories and methodological approaches; however, much of what is currently understood about leadership has been developed primarily through quantitative, statistical approaches. Bass (2008) argues that methodological and substantive issues in leadership research are likely to broaden by presenting the possibility of a new paradigm for leadership that combines the use of both objectivist and subjectivist views toward better understanding of leadership as a complex phenomenon. Therefore, to best understand relevant leadership processes and dynamics, the field of leadership research calls for the application of multiple research approaches. The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2012) xxx–xxx ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 5600 S 82nd Street, Lincoln, NE 68516, USA. E-mail address: jstentz@neb.rr.com (J.E. Stentz). LEAQUA-00861; No of Pages 11 1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua Please cite this article as: Stentz, J.E., et al., Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices, The Leadership Quarterly (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001