LEAD 6001 Module 4 Comparison of Models of Inquiry Example

One Question, Four Ways to Ask It: Comparing Experimental, Qualitative, Mixed Methods and Improvement Science Inquiry on Clinical Placement Models

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD6001: Introduction to Advanced Studies

Module 4 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 2, 2026

Introduction

Module 3 ended with a gap: research on dedicated education units reports that students like them and feel more confident, but says little about whether students on those units reason or perform better. Suppose I wanted to study that question in my own setting, a composite Tennessee BSN program that places students in community hospitals. How I ask it depends on the model of inquiry I choose, and each model rests on assumptions about what counts as knowledge. This paper sets out those assumptions briefly, then frames the same question four ways, quantitatively, qualitatively, with mixed methods and through practice-based inquiry, and judges which fits a scholar-practitioner.

Paradigms Before Methods

A research paradigm is the set of beliefs a researcher brings to a study about the nature of reality, how it can be known, which methods suit it and what values guide the work (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). A positivist or postpositivist paradigm assumes there are regularities that can be measured and tested; an interpretivist paradigm assumes that reality is understood through the meanings people give their experience; a pragmatic paradigm judges methods by whether they answer the question at hand. These beliefs are not decorations on a study. They decide what the study can claim.

Model 1: A Quantitative Comparison

Framed quantitatively, the question becomes: do students who complete their medical-surgical rotation on a dedicated education unit score higher on a measure of clinical judgment than students in traditional instructor-led groups? The study would assign or compare two groups, measure judgment with a validated instrument in a standard simulation and test the difference statistically. Its strength is a clear, comparable answer. Its weaknesses in my setting are practical: random assignment of students to units is rarely possible, groups would be small and differences between hospitals could explain any result. At best the design could show an association, not prove that the model caused it. A larger version across several programs could do better, but that is a funded research project, not a dissertation.

Model 2: A Qualitative Study

Framed qualitatively, the question changes shape: how do students and staff nurses on a dedicated education unit experience learning to make clinical decisions together? A case study or interpretive study would interview students, staff nurse teachers and faculty, observe a few shifts and analyze the accounts for patterns. It could reveal what actually happens when a staff nurse teaches, for example how much reasoning she voices aloud, which no score would show. It could not say whether those students perform better than others, and its findings would describe this unit rather than units in general. For a first doctoral study it has a further attraction: it can be done well with a handful of participants, which suits a unit with only a dozen staff nurses who teach.

Model 3: Mixed Methods

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) argued that mixed methods research should be seen as a natural complement to quantitative and qualitative research, with pragmatism as its philosophical partner and the fundamental principle that methods be combined so their strengths complement each other and their weaknesses do not overlap. A mixed design here might compare clinical judgment scores between the two placement types and then interview students with high and low scores in each group to explain the differences. The numbers would say whether a difference exists; the interviews would suggest why. The cost is effort: two kinds of data, two analyses and the work of integrating them, all of which take longer than either model alone.

Model 4: Inquiry From Within Practice

Two related models treat research as part of changing practice rather than standing apart from it. Lewin (1946) described action research as a spiral of planning, acting and fact-finding about the result of the action, with each cycle informing the next plan, and he insisted that research yielding only publications was not enough for practical social problems. Improvement science, as Lewis (2015) described it for education, focuses on learning from variation in practice and on practical measurement, testing small changes repeatedly rather than evaluating a whole program once.

Framed this way, my question becomes: what changes in how our partner unit's staff nurses teach would improve students' clinical reasoning, and how will we know after each small test? A team of faculty and staff nurses might test one change, such as nurses thinking aloud while assessing a patient, for two weeks, measure a simple indicator and adjust. The model fits my role closely, but its findings are tied to one setting and its rigor depends on careful measurement in each cycle.

Ethics and Access Across the Models

The models also raise different ethical questions. A quantitative comparison asks students to be measured and possibly assigned to placements for research reasons, which requires review board approval and care that no student loses a good placement for the sake of a design. A qualitative study gathers stories from students and staff nurses who may fear that criticism of a unit will reach their managers, so confidentiality has to be planned in detail. Mixed methods inherits both sets of concerns. Practice-based inquiry raises a subtler issue: when I am both the coordinator who assigns placements and the researcher studying them, students and nurses may find it hard to decline or to speak candidly, and the line between improving practice and conducting research can blur. Each model also needs a different kind of access, from a sample large enough for statistics to a hospital willing to let its staff try new teaching habits. Those constraints will shape my choice as much as my preferences will.

Comparing the Four

The models differ on four points. On the question, the quantitative model asks whether, the qualitative model asks how, mixed methods asks both and practice-based inquiry asks what change would help. On claims, only the quantitative and mixed designs can compare groups, and none can prove cause without random assignment. On setting, the qualitative and practice-based models depend most on the particular unit and least on generalization. On the researcher's role, the first three keep some distance from the setting, while action research and improvement science place the researcher inside it as a participant in the change.

Which Fits a Scholar-Practitioner Here

For my eventual dissertation, a mixed methods design or an improvement science approach seems the best fit. Mixed methods would let me compare placement types on a performance measure, filling the gap Module 3 identified, while interviews explained the result. Improvement science would let me change practice with a partner hospital as I studied it, which matches the scholar-practitioner identity I described in Module 1. The choice will depend on access: if a partner hospital agrees to open a dedicated unit, an improvement approach becomes possible; if not, a comparison using existing placements is more realistic. I do not need to choose now, but I now know what each choice would let me claim.

Conclusion

The same question about clinical placements can become an experiment, an interpretive study, a mixed design or a cycle of practical tests. Each rests on different beliefs about knowledge, answers a different version of the question and supports a different kind of claim. Learning to see those differences before committing to a design is, I suspect, one of the main purposes of a first doctoral course.

References

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570388