In brief, the study applied a mixed-method, which included both quantitative and qualitative approaches. According to Pegues (2007), the mixed method presents two research paradigms with opposing research philosophies. While the quantitative approach brings the positivism research philosophy, the qualitative aspect supports constructivism. As Biedenbach and Muller (2011) stated, the constructivism and positivism research philosophies are the epistemological stances that the researcher takes in a particular study depending on the specific research objectives. There are instances where a combination of methods is applied using the same kind of data and that method is called multimethods (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Multimethods unlike mixed methods do not have the same paradigmatic problem because they can adopt the paradigm suitable to the single type of data being collected (Hall, 2012).
In this case, some of the research questions can be answered using quantitative pieces of evidence while others can be answered using qualitative data. Therefore, the use of a mixed method was necessary for accommodating all the four specific objectives stated in the opening chapter.
The idea behind the mixed method was to widen the scope of the study by including the views of senior executives regarding the innovation culture and the sentiments of the employees concerning working environment they prefer to become innovators (Creswell, et al. 2006). According to Cameron (2011), the mixed method was developed to assist the researcher to enjoy the benefits of both research approaches: qualitative and quantitative. In yet another study, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) argued that the methodological pluralism and eclecticism make the mixed method a superior research approaches that minimize the demerits of the qualitative and quantitative research approaches while at the same time increase the merits associated with both approaches.
According to Gheondea-Eladi (2014) and Schreier (2017), qualitative research approach is all about gaining deep understanding of a research phenomenon. The qualitative approach will employ both the primary and secondary research design. The primary research will entail collection of firsthand information on the research problem and will apply the survey technique. The surveying technique will give descriptive statistics, which will aid in drawing of comprehensive inferences and conclusions on a research problem. Descriptive statistics assure the researcher breath of information and accuracy of the data obtained in the research study. Therefore, the researchers are usually keen on gathering valuable information from a small number of individuals. In this case, Company X senior managers are in a best position to answer critical questions regarding the companys previous, current, and future organisational culture.
In brief, the researcher used an interview to gather critical information regarding the companys organisational culture. This study focused on innovation; therefore, the interview design focused on the most informed and senior personnel in the company. The idea was to design an interview that asks the right people relevant questions. As Cameron (2011) stated, involving such individual assisted in getting much-needed detailed information that answered some of the research questions that do not require statistical evidence but a qualitative answer. For instance, the CEO, the Operation Director, and the Creative Director were in the best positions to answer questions on issue facing innovation in Company X, Therefore, engaging them provided crucial insights regarding challenges they face while trying to create and innovation environment. These senior managers also provided crucial insights regarding the steps they are taking to adopt an organisational culture that embraces innovation.
According to Turner (2010), standardized open-ended interviews allow participants to express their views regarding an issue. However, Turner (2010) admitted that giving the participants the freedom that comes with open-ended interview questions makes data analysis more complicated since extracting similar themes or codes is difficult. Recently, Castillo-Montoya (2016) examined the Interview Refinement Protocol (IPR), a four-phase process aimed and developing and refining an interview protocol. This study applied the IPR by ensuring that the questions align with the research questions as the first step. The second step was to construct an enquiry-based conversation. Thirdly, the researcher involved his colleagues to receive the feedback on the interview protocol (Castillo-Montoya (2016). Lastly, as the IPR states, the interview protocol was piloted before using it in the actual data collection.
Regarding the quantitative approach, the researcher focused on finding answers to the research questions that needed statistical evidence. As Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2002) and Hall (2012) observed in separate studies, the aspect of quantification of data in a mixed method is critical for tapping the many benefits associated with the quantification of responses. A survey was used to collect data from junior employees working for Company X. In this case, the quantitative approach was critical in answering some of the critical research questions. For instance, the query on the issues facing innovation allowed the participants to give quantifiable responses. Hence, it was possible to conduct data analysis to determine the level of agreement and disagreement regarding the obstacles that the employees consider significant. Also, the collection of the employees sentiments regarding the working environment they prefer allowed the researcher to identify, quantify, and compare different components that create an innovative culture. Population, Scope, and SamplingAs stated earlier, the study focused on Company X, which is in the services industry; therefore, the target population, the scope of the study, and the sampling frame were based on this company. In other words, the decisions made regarding the study were based on the company as the scope for the study. The Sampling FrameIn any study, the sampling frame is a critical factor that defines the criteria that will be used to select the participants. In other words, the idea is to distinguish individuals who are qualified to participate in a study from a general population for the sake of validity and reliability (Wolf et al., 2005; Guo, Kopec, Cibere, Li, and Goldsmith, 2016). In doing so, researchers can generate accurate findings since the selected participants represent the target population in such a way that it is easier to determine the sample size that would achieve a specific margin error and confidence level.
A randomly stratified sampling technique was used to collect data from the respondents. According to Pradhan (2013), the idea behind a stratified sampling method is to include employees from different departments. In doing so, it was possible to compare means and draw conclusions on how the sentiments of participants differed by departments. In particular, the stratified sampling was critical in ensuring the inclusion of an equal number of participants from each of the departments. On the same note, the stratified sampling method was critical in achieving the much-needed cross-sectional research design (Pradhan, 2013). With a stratified sampling technique and the cross-sectional research design, the researcher took a snapshot of each department by surveying employees working in these departments. Sample SizeThe size of the sample is critical in achieving validity and reliability to support the outcome of an empirical study. In this study, the researcher focused on achieving an acceptable margin error and confidence level. According to Liu (2015) a higher sample size increases confidence level while at the same time reduces the margin error. In this case, the researcher involved 15 employees who were permanently employed by Company X. The 15 participants represented a total of 48 employees working under both permanent and temporary arrangement. Questionnaire Design
When designing the questionnaire, it was critical to ensure that the questionnaire collects the much-needed information that will answer the research questions. The researcher had the opportunity to pick a questionnaire design that addresses the issues surrounding innovation. In particular, three options were analyzed to come up with the most appropriate questionnaire questions. They include the KEYS, the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ), and the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (SSSI) were evaluated. As Table 3 shows, four instruments were compared based on the measures norm, appropriateness, validity, and reliability. The KEYS and SOQ emerged as the best instrument; therefore, the questionnaire was designed to accommodate some aspects of both questionnaires. A study by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004) also revealed that KEYS and SOQ were significantly more reliable in meandering the innovation climate within an organisation. The sole aim of selecting the questionnaire designs for use in the study was because they were in line with the research objectives thus facilitating in achievement of the research objectives.
In line with the research objectives, the quantitative data collection focused on the KEYS, which is an organisational survey meant for assessing the climate for innovation and creativity. According to Amabile (1997), the social environment plays a major role in influencing the level and frequency of innovation and creativity in an organisation. As Table 3 shows, KEYS is an applicable tool that can measure how the innovative and creative behavior develops within an organisation. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the KEYS provided the much-needed platform for measuring management practices, resources, organisational motivation, and the expected outcomes. On the other hand, the SOQ examines the sentiments of employees regarding 9 elements that contribute to innovation within an organisation. Isaksen, Lauer, and Ekvall (1999) and Isaksen and Lauer (2001) confirmed that the SOQ cover all the critical dimensions of the organisational culture that promote creativity and innovation. As Table 3 shows, the three dimensions of motivation in an organisation were critical in establishing whether Company Xs working environment allows for innovation. Since the components of both tools were important and served different purposes, they were combined t...
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Dell Inc. Overview
- Essay on Meta-Ethical Thinking
- Walmart Versus Competitors in Leadership Styles - Management Essay Sample
- Case Study Example: Choice of Supplier
- Google Versus China: Investment Ethics
- Essay Sample: Hilton Hotels and Resorts - Marketing Segmentation and Strategy
- Business Essay Example: Restaurant Business Description