4.4 Concept and Data Findings
4.6 Method Triangulation
While commonalities in the data analysis were flagged in the previous sub-section, this section undertakes the formal method triangulation to analyse the findings from the Leximancer output and the manual coding thematic results. Triangulation is the process for utilising more than one approach to researching a question, with the objective to increase confidence in the findings by using two or more independent measures. This combination of the findings from two or more rigorous approaches, in this case
automated results from Leximancer and the manual coding that produced the thematic analysis, aims to provide a more comprehensive picture of the results than either approach could do alone. The triangulation compares, and contrasts observed similarities and differences between the two analysis techniques.
Table 9 details a consolidation of the key themes from Leximancer, the central themes as identified in the thematic analysis and the observations in respect of the commonalities and differences between the two analysis streams. For this triangulation exercise the core automated (A) findings were labelled A1 – A4 and the manual (M) were labelled M1 – M3 respectively.
A comparison of the findings, as outlined in sections 4.4 (Leximancer) and 4.5 (Manual coding) and summarised in table 9, confirmed that strong linkages existed between the two data sets. It is noted that while the three aggregated themes and their 1st order
codes were not an exact match with the data extracted from the automated Leximancer output sufficient commonality in the thematic outputs existed to validate that the manual coding process provided a realistic supportive interpretation of the data extracted in the first analysis stream from Leximancer, thereby further strengthening the research findings
Table 9 – Method triangulation of Leximancer and Thematic analysis data
Leximancer: Automated (A) Thematic Analysis: Manual (M) Observations
A1 Role of the key artefacts – tools and checklists: this theme focussed on the value of the ostensive routines and the importance of utilisation of the artefacts in guiding the response.
M1 Context of crisis leadership: this theme focused on the importance of the selection, experience and training of the crisis leader. This drives adherence to the ostensive routines by a leader’s ability to leverage the capabilities of the team. Personality evaluation state within this theme.
1. A1 and M3 are linked, with the theme relating to the operational value of the ostensive routines and the supporting artefacts as seen by the SMEs.
2. A2 aligned with M1 and M2. These themes related to the composition of the teams, the importance of skills and selection of
members and the CMT leader. 3. A3 and M3 are linked through the
relationship to learning and training. In both instances, the data to varying degrees supported post incident review of the performative aspect and modification to ostensive routines as required.
4. A4 is linked to M1 and M2 in respect of the role that personality and culture
respectively play in deviation from routines
5. While the strength of the relationships between A and M categories was not evaluated, there is still sufficient commonality in the data streams to support a finding that the ostensive crisis management routines are robust and that it is the human element, driven by a multitude of factors that drives the deviation.
A2 Role of the team and crisis leader: this theme focussed on elements including the selection and composition of the crisis team and the crisis leader. It also focussed on team and leader dynamics in respect of deviation from the ostensive routines.
M2 Context of crisis team composition: this theme integrates the importance of team dynamics, their experience, selection and an understanding of skill capabilities to minimise deviation from the ostensive routine. Culture was also linked to this theme.
A3 Role of training and process improvements: this theme centred on the importance of training in ensuring that process deviations were minimised. It linked to
learning from cases and the development of improvements to the ostensive routines based on learning.
M3 Validation of ostensive routines and enhancing performance: this relates to the perception by the respondents as to the operational value of the routines and artefacts in supporting the crisis response and the criticality of learning and training in strengthening capabilities.
A4 Culture and personality types in team dynamics: these themes centred on the role that culture, both business and national, played in influencing the crisis response and deviation from the routines. It also discussed the role of personality in crisis team dynamics and crisis leadership.
4.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the findings of the research. The data was collected from a variety of sources including: documented observations of crisis teams during training and simulation; interviews with subject matter experts; evaluations of crisis leader capabilities; and vignettes of real case responses. It commenced with a summary of the SMEs’ backgrounds to position their level of experience and competence in crisis management.
Having established the benchmark for the SMEs, the focus moved on to the findings relating to the data itself, as extracted from Leximancer. As noted in the methodology, the data was subjected to initial researcher analysis, which provided the first
interpretation of the data. During the next stage the connectivity of themes was
evaluated utilising the software, thereby mitigating researcher bias risk. The software analysis process involved the uploading of data pool into Leximancer for the simulation modelling. This then compartmentalised the findings from Leximancer into the
categories of:
▪ Concept findings overview; ▪ Role of the artefacts;
▪ Observations on process deviation; ▪ Role of the team and the crisis leader;
▪ Role of training and process improvements; ▪ Culture and personality in team dynamics; and
▪ Perceptions of risk management and business resilience.
Lastly, the chapter examined the findings obtained from the manual coding and the thematic analysis results. This manual coding data was added due to a recommendation arising from an earlier iteration of this paper, as a strategy to validate the accuracy of the Leximancer outputs. The findings from both Leximancer and the thematic analysis were then subjected to triangulation to compare and contrast observed similarities and differences. As shown, while the resulting manual coding and the thematic analysis results were not an exact match to the automated findings from Leximancer, there was
sufficient commonality in the thematic outputs to validate that the manual coding process provided a realistic supportive interpretation of the data as presented by Leximancer, thereby further strengthening the initial findings.
The empirical data findings addressed the question of how the ostensive and performative routines interact in a crisis management situation and what factors contribute to deviations from those routines. From the material obtained, a theory was developed to explain the deviation with this theory being that while the ostensive crisis routines and the related artefacts are robust the process deviation during a crisis response occurs due to the human dynamics. This incorporate the behaviours of the members of the crisis team and the crisis leader. The core causes of deviation are ineffective crisis leadership and weaknesses in the crisis team structure.
With this chapter having detailed the findings in respect of the research, the next chapter will discuss the findings through an evaluation of their meanings as contrasted with the extant literature that was evaluated as part of this research.