(b) Data Collection
Mixed methods research was conducted, where both qualitative and quantitative research were conducted. Such a method is beneficial as both methods can complement each other and fill the gaps that may be present if only one method had been used, thus allowing for a better grasp of the situation present. Despite its advantages, concerns have been raised about the possible dilution of research effort as resources have to be spread to conduct both sets of research(Bryman and Bell,2011).
Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of qualitative research. This allows the interviewer flexibility to take the interview in directions based on the interviewees' response. Additionally, the face-to-face presence allows for the interviewer to observe non-verbal cues that may serve to help identify contextual information that respondents may not voice out. The researchers also justified this method as being appropriate and more viable than focus group discussions due to confidentiality issues.
However, the reviewer would suggest that perhaps a face-to-face retrospective recollection may be better, as it allows for reflection on experiences of the change as a whole rather than mere answering of prompts(Higgs and Rowland, 2010).
Quantitative research involved the administering of self-completion questionnaires, and the primary benefit is the ease of implementation, which negates Bryman and Bell's(2011) concern over the dilution of resources when utilizing this method, since it requires less commitment of resources. Nonetheless, this does not allow for there to be additional data collection, thereby being unable to present a complete picture of the situation. Hence, it inherently justifies the need to use the mixed methods research since in-depth information could be obtained during the qualitative interviews.
On the whole, methods used for data collection were appropriate, and questions raised were internally reliable, since the majority of the Cronbach alphas were above 0.8.
(c) Data Analysis
The qualitative interview yielded opinions of selected organization members, and such data was coded, whilst descriptive statistics were obtained from quantitative data and coded based on the thematic coding frames derived. The explanation-building technique was then employed to interpret the coded data sets, by performing both individual and cross-case analysis, in order to examine the validity of the hypotheses raised.
Such a series of data analysis is comprehensive, and the reviewer believes that it would aid immensely in proving the validity of the hypotheses. As Klenke(2008) suggests, explanation building is useful for understanding case studies, since it allows for refinements and revisions to be made till the 'point of saturation' is achieved.
Quantitative questionnaires were presented to the entire population in both offices, though only 31% responded from Melbourne, and 66% responded in...