In many research textbooks the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is inadvertently linked with philosophical perspectives. This in essence creates a mutually exclusive relationship between method and philosophy. Initially researchers are led to believe, from these textbooks, that research is neatly divided into mutually exclusive categories, these being quantitative and qualitative research and 'never the twain shall meet'. This divide is further strengthened with the inference that the relationship extends further; associating deduction with quantitative methods and similarly induction with qualitative methods. "What happens in most texts is that qualitative research methods and quantitative research methods are set against each other as polar opposites. (Crotty 1998, p19)". This paper argues that methodological pluralism is acceptable but what is not acceptable is philosophical pluralism. By naively linking methods and approaches to specific philosophy researchers and students may miss out on potentially innovative or creative data collection methods. Alternatively and more importantly by feeling tied or constrained by their philosophical stance to particular methods and approaches, associated with them by textbooks, they may in fact reduce the credibility, validity, and or significance of the research. There maybe an elective affinity between certain philosophies and methods but this should not necessarily constrain the methods chosen.

Does the discursive formation of leadership theory hinder the development and practise of alternative leadership styles in the UK? This research question is in response to the issues summarised in the PriceWaterhouseCooper's 2008 report on Key Trends in Human Capital. Eight years into the new millennium, leadership is still at the top of the human capital agenda. Although companies invest considerable amounts of money in leadership development, the report suggests that there is limited evidence of leadership programmes delivering value for money, and that three in every ten leaders in the UK do not demonstrate essential leadership qualities. This indicates issues with the practical application of leadership research. The common denominator of all leadership research and application is the leadership theories. The theories are an easily comprehensible, continuous series of events that lead into the present of leadership, supporting all leadership research. Unquestioned assumptions support the theory framework, becoming commonly accepted truths. These suppositions include; the grounding of theory and research in reality; leadership is a fundamental component of the human condition; that social and economic progress has only been possible due to leadership, together with the unquestioned dismissal of alternative voices. Finally there is a notion that leadership theory evolves, drawing on a Darwinian event of natural selection, by evoking biological empirical science to explain a discursive structure. The research and the subject of this paper is to challenge the assumptions and framework of leadership theory through the creation of a research strategy based on Foucault's methods, creating a rhizome of contingencies rather than a progressive tree of knowledge. The paper will address definitions of the archive, archaeology and genealogy, as contextualised within the research.

Research philosophy classifications such as ontology, epistemology, and anxiology and their conflicting applications to the ‘quantitative‑qualitative’ debates, are a major source of dilemma to research students in establishing their relevance to subjects areas and discipline. A number of studies have used different descriptions, categorisations and classifications of research paradigms and philosophies in relation to research methods with overlapping emphasis and meanings. This has not only resulted in tautological confusion of what is rooted where, and according to whom; but raises a critical question of whether these opposing views are enriching knowledge or subtly becoming toxic in the field? . This paper puts forth a student voice towards these debates and aims to provoke research advocates from their peripheral standpoint to become concerned about this subtle but deepening concern of students and their future impacts. A concerted effort in this direction should eventually result in the development of a planned, systematic framework and procedure that show some consensus to bail research students from these bewildering classifications and debates. The paper briefly reviews, discusses, and analyses these research philosophy classifications and debates and provides a mapping thereby through literature. Then, assesses how they impact on research students through case studies based on three North West Universities in the UK. Responses were elicited using structured interview questionnaires where students fall into different faculties and subject groupings for comparison purposes. Although the findings paint a grim picture of research, they are not conclusive to all UK students as the sample studied is skewed geographically. Future studies must survey the impact from other geographical locations. It is the conglomeration of these studies that will provide the ‘real’ magnitude of the impact on research students. This paper contributes to discussions on research methods and calls for a consensus in the field of research.

The purpose of this paper is to identify an unspoken bias embedded within the academy, and to present a new paradigm for social science research that disrupts traditional graduate school indoctrination and knowledge mobilization practices in favor of a more inclusive academy. First, I tease apart the dogmatic camp‑building perpetuated by those who have learned to socialize a value for their own philosophical paradigms by discrediting others. I then suggest that research from different philosophical paradigms, but on the same phenomenon, can be presented together; and, that sense‑making of such findings need not reside in the academy, but instead, in the community of readers seeking to understand a complex phenomenon. Through my own story, I share a case of systemic dysfunction within traditional academic publication that acted as a barrier to my own knowledge mobilization. This inspired an alternative approach to dissemination that I call mixed methods triage: knowledge mobilization that juxtaposes different studies on a common phenomenon, regardless of philosophical alignment, and presents them to the reader as they are without converging or making sense of the findings as a whole. I identify three tenets for this approach, and propose triage as a potential platform for a more diverse and inclusive academy. Ultimately, mixed‑methods triage aligns with and expands pragmatic, mixed‑methods research and contributes to the emerging trend of interdisciplinary scholarship.