GM599 Unit 5 Capstone Methodology Section Example

Records, Then a Census, Then Twelve Conversations: A Unit 5 Methodology Section for a Transit Capstone

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GM599: Applied Research Project

Unit 5 Methodology Section

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Wexmoor Regional Transit, its staff and every figure are composite and illustrative; the methodological sources cited are real.

Design

The project uses a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. Nataliya Ivankova, John Creswell and Sheldon Stick describe this design as collecting and analyzing quantitative data first, then collecting qualitative data to help explain the quantitative results (Ivankova et al., 2006). The order fits the question. Records establish the pattern: how far internal applications have fallen, and among whom. The survey measures how widespread each explanation from the literature is among eligible operators. Interviews then explain what the numbers cannot, such as how pay, seniority and supervising former peers combine in one operator's decision. John Creswell and Vicki Plano Clark note that in this design the second phase is shaped by the results of the first, so the questions for operators will not be fixed until the survey results are in (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

Phase One: Records

Posting records, from the applicant tracking system, cover every road supervisor posting from 2019 to the present: posting date, internal applicants, withdrawals, the hire and whether the hire was internal or external, and the date the position was filled. Human resources has agreed to release them with applicant names removed.

Payroll records give annual earnings for operators and supervisors from 2019 to 2024, released by the payroll manager in grouped earnings ranges five thousand dollars wide, any range with under five people left blank. These allow a comparison of operator and supervisor earnings without identifying anyone.

Phase Two: A Census Survey

Population. The survey goes to every one of the 141 operators who currently qualify to apply for promotion. Because the whole group can be reached through garage mailboxes and an anonymous link, the survey is a census rather than a sample, and no sampling error applies, although nonresponse may still bias results.

Instrument. Fourteen items, most on five-point agreement scales, cover the three explanations from the literature: expected pay after promotion, loss of seniority and route picks, and willingness to direct and discipline former coworkers. One item asks respondents to choose every reason that would keep them from applying, and one asks for their tenure band. The survey does not ask which garage a respondent works at, because garage and tenure band together could identify some people. Items were reviewed for clarity by two operators and a supervisor who will not take part, following Don Dillman and colleagues' advice to pretest wording with people like the respondents (Dillman et al., 2014).

Administration. The union local will announce the survey at garage meetings, and paper copies with return envelopes will go to every eligible operator's mailbox alongside the link. Two reminders will follow at one-week intervals, and the survey will close after three weeks whatever the response rate.

The survey is a census because every eligible operator can be reached, which removes sampling error but leaves the project dependent on how many operators choose to answer.

Phase Three: Interviews

Selection. Michael Quinn Patton describes purposeful sampling as choosing cases that are rich in information about the question (Patton, 2015). Nine operators will be selected, three from each garage, varied by tenure and earnings band. At least two will be operators who applied for a supervisor posting and then withdrew, because their decisions are the most informative. The three people promoted from operator to road supervisor since 2019 will also be interviewed about what the move cost and gained them.

Guide. Semi-structured interviews of about 45 minutes will follow a guide built from the survey's results, focusing on the explanations the survey shows to be most common and on how they combine.

Analysis

Records and survey responses will be summarized with counts, percentages and comparisons by earnings and tenure band. Interviews will be transcribed and coded using thematic analysis as described by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke, moving from initial codes to themes that are checked against the full data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Findings from the three phases will then be integrated, showing where interviews confirm, explain or complicate the survey results.

Why Not Interviews Alone

Interviews alone would be quicker and would give rich accounts, but they could not show how common each explanation is. Twelve operators might all mention money, since it is the simplest reason to give a colleague, while the survey shows that seniority matters to nearly as many. Records alone would show the decline but not its causes. Combining the three lets each source cover another's weakness: records are objective but silent on reasons, the survey measures reasons but only as respondents state them, and interviews show how reasons combine but cannot be generalized.

Limitations of the Design

The design has four limits that the final paper will report. It covers one agency, so its findings may not transfer to other transit systems. The survey depends on response, and operators who are least interested in promotion may be least likely to answer. Reasons are self-reported, and operators may give the reasons they think are acceptable rather than the ones that drive their choice. And the writer's insider position may shape both the answers given and the reading of them. None of these is fatal for a project meant to inform one agency's decision, but each limits how far the findings can be pushed.

Timeline

Records will be collected in weeks one and two, the survey will run in weeks three to five on the union's meeting cycle, and interviews will take place in weeks six to eight, after a first look at the survey results.

The Writer's Position

The writer is a scheduling analyst at Wexmoor, not a manager or a human resources employee, and does not supervise any operator. Insider status gives access and context, but it may lead operators to answer in ways they think the writer wants, or lead the writer to read the data through familiar assumptions. Teresa Brannick and David Coghlan argue that insiders should state their position and its likely effects rather than claim neutrality (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). The survey's anonymity and the use of records that do not depend on the writer's interpretation are meant to limit those effects.

Access Appendix

The appendix reproduces three permission emails: from the general manager approving the study, from human resources agreeing to release posting records without names, and from the payroll manager agreeing to banded earnings with small groups suppressed.

References

Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being "native": The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289253

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.